For $d$ fermionic creation operators with the canonical anticommutation relations, the Hilbert space $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)\otimes {\Lambda }^{\bullet }{\mathbb{C}}^d$ splits into ${\mathcal{H}}_n=L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)\otimes {\Lambda }^n{\mathbb{C}}^d$, $0\le n\le d$. The fermion number operator $N={\sum }_a{\psi }_a^{†}{\psi }_a$ has value $n$ on ${\mathcal{H}}_n$; its internal multiplicity is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{d}{n}\right)$. An odd supercharge $Q=q+q^{†}$, with $q$ raising $n$ and $q^2=0$, gives $H=\{q,q^{†}\}$ and preserves these sectors.

On an eigenspace with $E>0$, $Q/\sqrt{E}$ is an odd involution pairing bosonic and fermionic states. More precisely,gives an orthogonal decomposition of each state into the images of $q$ and $q^{†}$: their inner product vanishes because $(q^{†}{)}^2=0$. If $u\in \mathrm{im}{q}^{†}$, then $q^{†}u=0$, $q^{†}qu=Eu$ and $\Vert qu{\Vert }^2=E\Vert u{\Vert }^2$. Thus $q/\sqrt{E}$ pairs such a state in degree $n$ with one in degree $n+1$, and $q^{†}/\sqrt{E}$ is the inverse. States with zero energy are killed by both operators and may remain unpaired. The pairing applies to positive spectral subspaces as well; discreteness is not implied.

For a real smooth function $\chi$ on Euclidean space, put $A_a={\partial }_a-{\partial }_a\chi$ and $q={\sum }_a{\psi }_a^{†}{A}_a$. The adjoint operator for the usual $L^2$ inner product is $A_a^{†}=-{\partial }_a-{\partial }_a\chi$. Since $[A_a,A_b]=0$, the canonical anticommutation relations give $q^2=0$. Expanding $H=\{q,q^{†}\}$ and using $[A_a,A_b^{†}]=-2{\partial }_a{\partial }_b\chi$ givesIn the empty fermionic Fock space sector the last term vanishes; in the filled sector ${\psi }_a^{†}{\psi }_b={\delta }_{ab}$. Consequently the two scalar Hamiltonian operators are $H_0=-\Delta +|\nabla \chi {|}^2+\Delta \chi$ and $H_d=-\Delta +|\nabla \chi {|}^2-\Delta \chi$. On the compatible self-adjoint operator domain the Hamiltonian operator is nonnegative because $⟨v,Hv⟩=\Vert qv{\Vert }^2+\Vert q^{†}v{\Vert }^2$.

With a well-defined regulated supertrace, positive-energy states of supersymmetric quantum mechanics are paired by an odd invertible charge. Their opposite fermion parities cancel, leaving $I=n_B^0-n_F^0$, independent of $\beta$. A nonzero index proves the existence of a supersymmetric vacuum; zero does not prove its absence. Discrete-spectrum or suitable infrared conditions matter, because continuum thresholds and states escaping to infinity can invalidate naive trace manipulations or deformation invariance.

The candidate zero modes are $e^{-{\int }^{x}w}$ in the minus sector and $e^{+{\int }^{x}w}$ in the plus sector; this follows from the positive squared-norm expressions for their energy. Their membership in the Hilbert space determines whether supersymmetry is unbroken. For $w=x$ only the first is normalizable. For $w=x^2+a$, $a>0$, neither is normalizable, while both partner potentials grow quartically and have discrete spectra. Thus their strictly positive lowest energy is paired and supersymmetry is broken, with zero Witten index.

In four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theory, Seiberg–Witten theory determines exact low-energy quantities from the geometry of the vacuum parameter space. For rank one, the central charge in supersymmetry is proportional to $n_{e}a+n_m{a}_D$, with integral electric and magnetic charges and $a_D$ the dual scalar period. The BPS bound in supersymmetry fixes the mass of a short state by this charge combination. Its vanishing identifies loci where a magnetic monopole or dyon can become massless, even when the original electric description is strongly coupled.

Minimal ten-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theory contains a gauge field and an adjoint Majorana-Weyl spinor. They have eight propagating bosonic and eight propagating fermionic states per gauge generator and sixteen real supercharges. A toroidal zero-mode dimensional reduction to four dimensions gives one gauge field, six real adjoint scalar fields, and four adjoint Weyl spinors: a four-dimensional N=4 super Yang-Mills theory. The internal field strength $F_{mn}=-ig[X_m,X_n]$ gives the nonnegative scalar potential $V=\frac{g^2}{4}{\sum }_{m,n}\Vert [X_m,X_n]{\Vert }^2$, where the norm uses a positive invariant inner product on the Lie algebra. Its minima are commuting tuples of adjoint scalar fields.

A classical supersymmetric mechanical model takes its coordinates in a Grassmann algebra: the position is even and the fermionic coordinates are odd. Time differentiation is even, while variation with respect to an odd coordinate uses Grassmann derivatives. For example, moving an odd variation to the left and integrating by parts gives $\delta \int \psi \dot{\psi }dt=2\int \delta \psi \dot{\psi }dt$.

For the real variant $L={\dot{x}}^2/2+U^2/2-{\psi }_1{\dot{\psi }}_1/2+{\psi }_2{\dot{\psi }}_2/2+U^{\prime }{\psi }_1{\psi }_2$, the Euler-Lagrange equations areThe conserved even energy is $E={\dot{x}}^2/2-U^2/2-U^{\prime }{\psi }_1{\psi }_2$ and the odd supercharges are $Q_1=\dot{x}{\psi }_1-U{\psi }_2$, $Q_2=\dot{x}{\psi }_2-U{\psi }_1$. For example, ${\dot{Q}}_i=U^{\prime \prime }{\psi }_1{\psi }_2{\psi }_i=0$, since each odd element squares to zero. Also $d({\psi }_1{\psi }_2)/dt=U^{\prime }({\psi }_2^2+{\psi }_1^2)=0$, which proves $\dot{E}=0$.

The gauge kinetic function is a symmetric holomorphic function of chiral superfields multiplying the gauge field-strength F-term. Its real part controls gauge kinetic coefficients and its imaginary part controls topological-angle terms. Its Wilsonian perturbative correction is constrained by one-loop exactness of the holomorphic gauge kinetic function; canonical and one-particle-irreducible gauge couplings require separate normalization and infrared analysis.

// Target: supersymmetry.bigb

A two-derivative four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge action is specified by a real gauge-invariant Kähler potential, a gauge-invariant holomorphic superpotential, and a holomorphic symmetric gauge kinetic function. A constant Fayet–Iliopoulos term is additionally allowed for an Abelian gauge factor. Renormalizability restricts the matter kinetic function to a quadratic form, the superpotential to degree at most three, and the gauge kinetic function to a constant invariant tensor.

Minimal four-dimensional supergravity couples a graviton to one Majorana gravitino. In the normalization $\delta e_{\mu }{}^a=2\kappa \overline{ϵ}{\gamma }^a{\psi }_{\mu }$, $\delta {\psi }_{\mu }={\nabla }_{\mu }ϵ/\kappa$, its action through quadratic fermion order is $\int e[R/(2{\kappa }^2)-2{\bar{\psi }}_{\mu }{\gamma }^{\mu \nu \rho }{\nabla }_{\nu }{\psi }_{\rho }]$. Rescaling the gravitino and parameter by two gives the usual canonical kinetic coefficient $-1/2$. The curvature identity ${\gamma }^{\mu \nu \rho }{\nabla }_{\nu }{\nabla }_{\rho }ϵ=G^{\mu \nu }{\gamma }_{\nu }ϵ/2$ cancels the Einstein-Hilbert variation against the Rarita-Schwinger variation. The omitted cubic-fermion variations require the quartic-fermion completion.

A Killing spinor is a nonzero supersymmetry parameter that makes the fermionic transformations vanish on a bosonic background. In undeformed minimal four-dimensional supergravity it is parallel, ${\nabla }_{\mu }ϵ=0$; in its cosmological deformation the equation uses ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mu }={\nabla }_{\mu }+(m/2){\gamma }_{\mu }$. Its commuting Dirac current is a Killing vector, since the spinor equation makes the symmetric covariant derivative of the current vanish. General supergravity theories also impose the vanishing of matter-fermion transformations.

Eleven-dimensional supergravity contains a metric, a three-form potential and a gravitino. Its bosonic on-shell counts are $11(11-3)/2=44$ for the metric and $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{9}{3}\right)=84$ for the three-form, totaling $128$. Flat toroidal zero-mode reduction gives type IIA supergravity in ten dimensions and four-dimensional N=8 supergravity in four dimensions without losing these bosonic polarizations.

// Target: supersymmetry.bigb

The scalar fields of chiral matter induce a composite phase connection proportional to $i(K_i{\partial }_{\mu }{z}^i-K_{\bar{i}}{\partial }_{\mu }{\bar{z}}^{\bar{i}})$. For canonical Kähler potential it is proportional to the scalar phase current. The chiral matter fermions and gravitino have appropriate Kähler weights; expanding their connection terms produces scalar-current–fermion-bilinear couplings. Overall signs and coefficients depend on spinor and Planck-scale conventions.

For energy with kinetic term ${\hslash }^2|D_{\eta }\psi {|}^2/(2m)$, $\eta =\pm 1$, variation gives $-{\hslash }^2{D}_{\eta }^2\psi /(2m)+(\alpha +\beta |\psi {|}^2)\psi =0$ and current $j=\eta q\hslash \mathrm{Im}({\psi }^{\ast }\nabla \psi )/m-q^2|\psi {|}^{2}A/m$. Thus changing the sign of the covariant derivative changes the phase-gradient term of the current. The displayed energy, field equation and current must use the same convention.

The Field-cooled Meissner experiment starts above the superconducting transition temperature with a weak, steady applied magnetic field already penetrating a solid sample. Cooling while keeping the applied magnetic field fixed tests whether the interior magnetic flux changes. This is the decisive contrast with cooling in zero magnetic field and switching the magnetic field on afterwards. The diagram shows the two histories for the same final applied magnetic field.

Meissner and Ochsenfeld reported magnetic expulsion in 1933, showing that the transition involves more than vanishing electrical resistance. A modern motivating version appears in MIT's lead-sample experiment: surround the sample with a solenoid supplying a steady magnetic field and a separate pickup coil connected to a recording instrument. Apply the magnetic field while the lead is still normal, then cool through its transition without changing the solenoid electric current. Expulsion produces a transient pickup-coil electric potential difference; warming through the transition produces the opposite sign as magnetic flux returns. MIT also checks the signal direction by switching off the applied magnetic field while the sample is normal. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Faraday's law of induction explains the readout. For a stationary $N$-turn pickup coil, with the same linked magnetic flux $\Phi$ per turn and a fixed orientation,Thus a transient measures a change in linked magnetic flux, not directly the static magnetic field at every point in the sample. For stipulated $N=100$ and $\Delta \Phi =-2\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{Wb}$ per turn, the signed pulse area is $+2\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{s}$. The apparatus geometry determines how a change in interior magnetic field contributes to that linked magnetic flux. Keeping the applied magnetic field fixed, repeating on warming, and checking a normal-state control make the expulsion interpretation testable; a stationary pickup coil has no sustained signal after the magnetic flux has stopped changing.

Why does the preparation history matter? In the stationary, ideal perfect conductor model, the interior electric field is zero. The differential form of Faraday's law of induction then givesIf the interior magnetic field was ${\mathbf{B}}_0$ when perfect conduction began, it remains ${\mathbf{B}}_0$; if it was zero, it stays zero when an external magnetic field is subsequently applied. Both a perfect conductor prepared in zero magnetic field and a sample exhibiting the Meissner effect can therefore exclude a newly applied weak magnetic field. Only the field-cooled comparison tests expulsion of an already present magnetic field. This argument concerns a stationary sample and the ideal zero-electric field model, not a moving conductor.

The equilibrium London equations supply the additional constraint. In a homogeneous region without penetrating flux tubes, they imply ${\nabla }^2\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}/{\lambda }_L^2$. For a half-space $z\ge 0$ with a magnetic field parallel to its flat boundary, fixed surface value $B_s$, and a bounded solution deep inside, this givesAt $z=5{\lambda }_L$ only $e^{-5}\simeq 0.00674$ of the surface magnetic field remains. The screening electric currents near the surface produce this reduction. Unlike the frozen interior magnetic field of a perfect conductor, this equilibrium profile does not retain an arbitrary initial ${\mathbf{B}}_0$. The extra constitutive relation, and not zero electrical resistance by itself, selects the screened state. Expulsion occurs during the transition, when transient electric fields can be present; the steady-state zero-electric field argument does not describe the process of establishing superconductivity. The diagram gives equilibrium end states, not transition kinetics. ^[ref]

These ideal comparisons concern a solid sample in equilibrium and a sufficiently weak magnetic field. Stronger magnetic fields can destroy superconductivity or permit magnetic flux to penetrate parts of a sample, so complete bulk expulsion is not a claim about every superconducting state. ^[ref] A hole in a superconducting loop can retain magnetic flux even while the material surrounding it screens its own interior; see flux conservation in a superconducting loop. The hole is not superconducting material, so its retained magnetic flux does not contradict the Meissner effect. ^[ref]

The motivating observation is an abrupt disappearance of detectable electrical resistance on cooling, rather than a smooth improvement in conduction. The diagram pairs the measuring arrangement with an idealized transition. Its curves are deliberately synthetic; neither their scales nor their abrupt step are a reconstruction of measured mercury data.

In a report communicated in November 1911, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes described a mercury thread in seven connected glass U-tubes immersed in a stirred liquid-helium bath. Expansion spaces kept freezing mercury from breaking the glass or interrupting the thread. Separate leads supplied electric current and sensed electric potential difference. He compensated a troublesome thermoelectric effect and reversed the main electric current to extract the resistive signal. He reported a rapid fall between $4.21$ and $4.19\mathrm{K}$ on his stated historical temperature scale, with electrical resistance disappearing at the lower value. The apparatus and control of spurious electric potential differences are part of the discovery, not incidental details. ^[ref]

A modern version places a contacted sample and a calibrated thermometer close together in a cooling environment. Use four-terminal sensing, record the small applied electric current $I$, the sensed electric potential difference $V$, and the sample temperature $T$, then plot $R(T)=V/I$. Repeat on warming as well as cooling, and allow readings to stabilize near thermal equilibrium. Disagreement between warming and cooling is a reason to check sample–thermometer lag and reproducibility before quoting a superconducting transition temperature. Mikhailov and Kordosky's undergraduate experiment uses this strategy with liquid-nitrogen cooling. ^[ref]

Choose the measuring electric current small enough that Joule heating does not appreciably change the sample temperature, and repeat with a smaller electric current to check that the transition persists. Cancel stable offsets using the reversal described in four-terminal sensing. A reading indistinguishable from zero supplies an experimental upper bound, not a proof of exact zero electrical resistance. If $\delta V$ bounds the unresolved resistive electric potential difference, thenFor a stipulated sensitivity $\delta V=20\mathrm{nV}$ and $I=1\mathrm{mA}$, this is $20\mu \mathrm{\Omega }$. The bound applies between the sensing contacts; it is not the electrical resistance of the complete wiring. A conducting path through part of an inhomogeneous sample can also make $V$ negligible, so the Field-cooled Meissner experiment adds independent evidence about the material's magnetic response.

The superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ is the temperature at which the material enters superconductivity on cooling in zero applied magnetic field and with negligible measuring electric current. A measured transition at nonzero magnetic field or appreciable electric current need not occur at this zero-field $T_c$. If a resistance-versus-temperature experiment for superconductivity gives a transition spread over several temperatures, report whether its quoted value is the onset, midpoint, or disappearance of detectable electrical resistance, together with the experimental conditions. This operational distinction matters when comparing samples. ^[ref]

A type-II superconductor can admit magnetic flux through quantized vortices while retaining superconductivity between their cores. Its superconducting mixed state lies between the lower critical magnetic field and upper critical magnetic field. These are equilibrium bulk distinctions; sample shape, flux pinning and preparation affect a measured magnetic response.

The motivating thin-film experiments changed an apparently minor preparation detail. Nikolay Zavaritskii evaporated metal onto glass; Alexander Shalnikov proposed cooling the substrate to helium temperatures to suppress agglomeration. The resulting critical-field behavior no longer matched the small-parameter approximation. Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov found a different regime within the same theory, rather than discarding its equations.^[ref]

A type-I superconductor has a bulk equilibrium transition between the Meissner state and the normal state at a single thermodynamic critical magnetic field, for a sufficiently simple sample geometry. In local Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity, its parameter $\kappa =\lambda /\xi$ is below $1/\sqrt{2}$, where $\lambda$ is the London penetration depth and $\xi$ is the superconducting coherence length.

The positive energy of a normal–superconducting interface favors separating large domains rather than forming the stable Abrikosov vortex lattice characteristic of a type-II superconductor. In a finite specimen, demagnetizing fields can produce an intermediate domain state over a range of applied fields. That geometry-dependent coexistence should be distinguished from the superconducting mixed state of quantized vortices. The $1/\sqrt{2}$ criterion is the local Ginzburg–Landau result, rather than a universal replacement for all microscopic or geometrical qualifications.

If $u^2\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}p)$, this lattice has basis $(1,u),(0,p)$ and covolume $p$. The Minkowski convex body theorem applied to a disk of squared radius strictly between $4p/\pi$ and $2p$ gives a nonzero lattice vector with $0<a^2+b^2<2p$. The congruence makes its squared length divisible by $p$, forcing $a^2+b^2=p$. The strict radius bounds avoid assuming the critical-volume form of Minkowski's theorem.