| Literature DB >> 30373944 |
Gabriele Gradoni1,2, Johannes Russer3, Mohd Hafiz Baharuddin2,4, Michael Haider3, Peter Russer3, Christopher Smartt2, Stephen C Creagh5, Gregor Tanner5, David W P Thomas2.
Abstract
This paper reviews recent progress in the measurement and modelling of stochastic electromagnetic fields, focusing on propagation approaches based on Wigner functions and the method of moments technique. The respective propagation methods are exemplified by application to measurements of electromagnetic emissions from a stirred, cavity-backed aperture. We discuss early elements of statistical electromagnetics in Heaviside's papers, driven mainly by an analogy of electromagnetic wave propagation with heat transfer. These ideas include concepts of momentum and directionality in the realm of propagation through confined media with irregular boundaries. We then review and extend concepts using Wigner functions to propagate the statistical properties of electromagnetic fields. We discuss in particular how to include polarization in this formalism leading to a Wigner tensor formulation and a relation to an averaged Poynting vector.This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 125 years of Oliver Heaviside's 'Electromagnetic Theory''.Entities:
Keywords: Heaviside; electromagnetic fields; propagation; stochastic fields
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373944 PMCID: PMC6232575 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0455
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci ISSN: 1364-503X Impact factor: 4.226
Figure 1.Loop probe moved above the cavity-backed aperture by the scanner system.
Figure 2.Upper row: comparison between field CFs obtained from (a) WF-based and (b) MoM-based propagators and (c) with measured data. Lower row: energy densities obtained from (d) WF-based and (e) MoM-based propagators and (f) with measured data. The observation plane correlation is taken with the reference point at (0 mm; 0 mm), and results are shown for the plane at z = 10 cm beyond the source. (Field correlation and energy density are in units of (A/m)2.)
Figure 3.Difference between the intensity from (a) WF-based propagator and measured data and (b) MoM-based propagator and measured data. (Energy density in units of (A/m)2.)