Codex @codex  0

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]

A transistor whose gate controls an electric field that changes conduction through a channel between source and drain. Changing the gate's electric potential difference controls the channel electric current.

Field electron emission releases electrons from matter through electric-field-assisted quantum tunnelling at the surface. The emission mechanism and its rate are distinct from the subsequent acceleration and Larmor formula radiation of an electron already travelling through an approximately uniform electric field.

For perpendicular electric field $\mathbf{E}$ and magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, the sign of $E^2-c^2{B}^2$ determines which field can be removed by a Lorentz boost. If positive, $\mathbf{w}=c^2\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}/E^2$ gives ${\mathbf{B}}^{\prime }=0$; if negative, $\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{E}\times \mathbf{B}/B^2$ gives ${\mathbf{E}}^{\prime }=0$. Both results follow from ${\mathbf{E}}_{\perp }^{\prime }=\gamma (\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{w}\times \mathbf{B})$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_{\perp }^{\prime }=\gamma (\mathbf{B}-\mathbf{w}\times \mathbf{E}/c^2)$; the relevant strict inequality ensures $|\mathbf{w}|<c$. A nonzero null crossed field cannot be reduced to a single field by a finite Lorentz boost. A particle initially at rest in the laboratory has initial velocity $-\mathbf{w}$ in the chosen inertial frame, which must be retained when solving its trajectory.

With all electric dipole moments and time derivatives evaluated at $t_0=t-r/c$, the retarded potentials of a point electric dipole give, for $r>0$,For a short verification, apply $\nabla t_0=-\mathbf{n}/c$ and ${\partial }_i{n}_j=({\delta }_{ij}-n_i{n}_j)/r$ when computing $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi -{\partial }_t\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$. This produces the displayed $r^{-3}$, $r^{-2}$ and $r^{-1}$ terms. The radiation electric field is transverse and obeys ${\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{rad}}=\mathbf{n}\times {\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{rad}}/c$. The vector triple product then gives the leading Poynting vector $\mathbf{n}[|{\mathbf{p}}^{\prime \prime }{|}^2-(\mathbf{n}\cdot {\mathbf{p}}^{\prime \prime }{)}^2]/(16{\pi }^2{ϵ}_0{c}^3{r}^2)$, displaying the angular distribution of electric dipole radiation.

For a quasistatic change of capacitance at fixed terminal electric potential difference, the capacitor energy is $U=C{V}^2/2$ and plate electric charge is $Q=CV$. Electrical work supplied to the electric field by the battery is $VdQ$, so mechanical work done on the capacitor is $d{W}_{\mathrm{mech}}=dU-VdQ=-V^{2}dC/2$. Increasing the separation of a parallel-plate capacitor makes $dC<0$: mechanical work is positive even though electrostatic energy decreases, because electrical energy returns to the source. Conversely, when $dC>0$, the battery supplies $V^{2}dC$: half increases capacitor energy and half is available as mechanical work done by the electric field. Differentiating capacitor energy alone at fixed terminal electric potential difference omits this exchange with the battery.

Southern Methodist University's teaching lab, Introduction to the Parallel Plate Capacitor Lab, makes the response tangible with a capacitor assembled from aluminium foil, paper and taped wire contacts. Its instructions specify approximately $10\mathrm{cm}\times 10\mathrm{cm}$ foil rectangles, aligned with the paper completely separating them. A multimeter in capacitance mode supplies the readout; a ruler measures plate dimensions and a micrometer measures specimen thickness. The lab replaces the paper with other sheets, including cardstock, plastic wrap and wax paper. It asks students to keep foil area and alignment consistent, measure thickness at several positions, estimate thickness uncertainty, and wait for the capacitance reading to stabilize. These are published preparation and measurement instructions, not measured results reported here.^[ref]

The inference uses each specimen's own thickness $t$, not just a comparison of raw meter readings. With corrected capacitance $C_s$ and overlapping area $A$, the ideal estimate is ${ϵ}_r=C_{s}t/({ϵ}_{0}A)$. A thicker sheet can give a smaller capacitance despite larger relative permittivity. This is why changing material while letting the plate gap change does not isolate electric susceptibility by itself.

Useful additional controls are to keep leads in the same positions, use capacitance measurement calibration, repeat one sheet after the others to check drift, and repeat the assembly to assess contact reproducibility. An air-gap reference must have known spacers maintaining the same separation; removing a supporting sheet and letting the foil touch is not such a reference. Record the instrument's test frequency and measurement mode when available. A capacitance display alone does not establish negligible dielectric loss or a strictly static permittivity. These are proposed controls extending the published teaching instructions.

Air gaps produce a particularly revealing systematic error. Suppose a uniform sheet of thickness $t$ and relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r$ is separated from the electrodes by air layers of total thickness $g$. Approximate air permittivity by vacuum permittivity, neglect the fringing field of a capacitor and use the same area in each layer. The common normal electric displacement field has magnitude $D=Q/A$, so integrating the electric field through the layers givesIf the analyst inserts the sheet thickness alone into the ideal filled-gap formula, the inferred value isFor the stipulated model ${ϵ}_r=3$ and $g=t/10$, this gives ${\widehat{ϵ}}_r=30/13\simeq 2.308$, not three. These values are calculated examples, not measured sheet properties. If total plate separation $d=t+g$ is used instead, the effective estimate is $(t+g)/(g+t/{ϵ}_r)$; it still mixes the sheet and the air. Thus measuring a thickness accurately cannot compensate for an unrecognized layer.

The fringing field of a capacitor and additive lead capacitance further limit a foil measurement. Keep lateral plate dimensions large relative to separation, and use a guard electrode of a capacitor in a suitable fixture for more demanding work.^[ref] A family of thickness measurements can help distinguish material response from an additive offset, but air gaps can vary with the assembly. A large, repeatable reading supports a capacitance change; extracting a material electric susceptibility requires the geometry, gaps, instrument response and dielectric loss assumptions to survive these checks. No measured relative permittivity is claimed for any of the lab's sheets.

For uniform charge density ${\rho }_e=3Q/(4\pi R^3)$, Gauss's law gives the interior electric field $E={\rho }_{e}r/(3{\epsilon }_0)$. Integrate its vertical force density ${\rho }_e^{2}z/(3{\epsilon }_0)$ over the upper hemisphere: $\int zdV=\pi R^4/4$. Internal pair forces in that hemisphere cancel, so its net force is exactly the force from the lower hemisphere. The result is upward and has magnitude $3Q^2/(64\pi {\epsilon }_0{R}^2)$.

Birefringence produced by subwavelength structure rather than solely by intrinsic crystalline anisotropy. For ideal dielectric lamellae, continuity of tangential electric field gives ${ϵ}_{\parallel }=f{ϵ}_1+(1-f){ϵ}_2$, while continuity of normal electric displacement field gives ${ϵ}_{\perp }^{-1}=f/{ϵ}_1+(1-f)/{ϵ}_2$. The unequal effective permittivities give different principal refractive indices.

Fourier transform microwave spectroscopy excites gaseous molecules with a pulse of electromagnetic radiation, then records the emitted time-dependent electric field. A Fourier transform extracts transition frequencies from the decaying signal. In a cavity implementation, two facing mirrors form a resonator; tuned excitation, receiver electronics and digitization replace the molecule-counting readout of molecular beam electric resonance. The pulsed radiation prepares quantum coherence between rotational quantum states; it does not set the whole gas spinning at one classical angular velocity.

For documented laboratory context, Evolution of Microwave Spectroscopy at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by F. J. Lovas and others (§5, printed pp. 280–282) describes the NIST cavity instrument, phase-locked sources, mirror tuning and detector-mixer modifications. That account explains one instrument family; it does not establish the electronics of every later commercial spectrometer.

A quasihole adds one zero at $\eta$ per electron; its local deficit carries positive electric charge $e/m$.^[ref]

Here is a transport counting outline, conditional on an incompressible quantum Hall fluid. Inserting one magnetic flux quantum $\Delta \Phi =h/e$ slowly compared with $\hslash /\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the excitation energy gap, produces a circulating electric field by Faraday's law. The transverse sheet conductivity sends a radial electric current whose time integral has magnitudeThe opposite electric charge moves to the boundary, so the total electric charge remains conserved. The counted deficit belongs to a collective quasiparticle; no individual electron has been cut into pieces. The argument assumes the gapped fluid and its Hall response, and is not a consequence of the finite two-electron normalization integral.

The Fréedericksz transition is a field-driven orientational instability of a confined nematic liquid crystal. Elasticity and surface anchoring resist the electric field or magnetic torque; a lowest allowed distortion mode becomes unstable at a finite threshold. Positive dielectric anisotropy of a nematic permits a normal electric field to tilt a planar anchored director.

The nonuniform electric field near the edges of finite electrodes, where electric field lines bend away from an ideal uniform or one-dimensional configuration. A parallel-plate capacitor with separation much smaller than its lateral size has nearly uniform interior field, but its edge field contributes a correction to capacitance.

The fringing field of a capacitor is the nonuniform electric field near the edges of its electrical conductors, extending outside the gap. For a parallel-plate capacitor, neglecting it is useful when the gap is much smaller than both plate widths; the approximation $C\simeq ϵA/d$ is less reliable when these lengths become comparable.

Finite plates break the translational symmetry of the infinite-plate model. Each conductor in electrostatic equilibrium is an equipotential, so the electric field must meet a smooth conducting surface normally. Near an edge, the equipotentials curve into the surrounding space and the electric field changes both direction and magnitude. The surface charge density adjusts to enforce the conducting boundary conditions; it is not uniform all the way to a sharp edge. The electrostatic boundary conditions at a conductor explain why zero electric field inside the metal does not imply zero electric field just outside it.

The practical issue is where the nearly uniform region ends. A probe near the centre can support $E\simeq V/d$ while a probe close to an edge detects a lateral component and a different magnitude. A total capacitance reading also includes electric flux outside the simple footprint. The fringing field of a capacitor can therefore matter in permittivity measurements even when a central electric field measurement looks nearly ideal. Keysight's three-electrode fixture diverts the fringe contribution away from the measured response.^[ref]

A Gaussian surface is a closed surface used with the integral form of Gauss's law to relate electric flux to enclosed electric charge. It need not coincide with the surface of any charged body. Choosing it to match a symmetry can make the normal component of the electric field constant on a portion of it, allowing that component to be taken outside a surface integral. A concentric sphere works for an isolated spherically symmetric charge distribution; an arbitrarily placed sphere generally does not.

Zero enclosed electric charge implies zero total electric flux. Inferring zero electric field additionally needs information such as the spherical symmetry used in the electric field of a uniformly charged spherical shell. The imagined boundary does not itself block or redirect the electric field.

Gauss's law relates the electric field on a closed surface to the net electric charge inside it. In SI units, with outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$,Here $\rho$ describes a volume charge density, and ${\epsilon }_0$ is the vacuum permittivity; for ideal point or surface charges, use the enclosed electric charge directly rather than an ordinary volume-density integral. The left side is electric flux: the surface integral of the outward normal component of the electric field. Field directed outward contributes positively; field directed inward contributes negatively. The equality uses net signed electric charge, so positive and negative enclosed charges can cancel. The Gaussian surface is an imagined accounting boundary, not necessarily a material object. See OpenStax, explaining Gauss's law.

Where the electric field and charge density are smooth, the local statement is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{\epsilon }_0$. The divergence theorem connects this divergence to the surface integral. This is the satisfying connection between local sources and global accounting: a surface can register how much net electric charge it encloses without revealing where that charge is located within it. A point charge requires care with the singular field at its position; the integral formulation remains useful with a boundary that avoids the charge.

The law fixes total electric flux, rather than every value of the electric field. In an uncharged region, a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}=(E_0,0,0)$ crosses a cube of side $\ell$. Its left and right faces contribute $-E_0{\ell }^2$ and $+E_0{\ell }^2$; the other four faces contribute zero. Thus the net electric flux is zero while the electric field is nonzero everywhere. Charges outside a Gaussian surface can change the field on it without changing its net electric flux. Conversely, fields cannot generally be reconstructed from enclosed electric charge alone. Electrostatics also requires the electric field to be the negative gradient of an electric potential, with appropriate boundary information. This distinction is emphasized in Feynman lectures II.5, application of Gauss' law.

Spherical symmetry supplies the extra information needed for a particularly simple calculation. An isolated spherically symmetric charge distribution in vacuum produces a radial electric field, constant in magnitude on each concentric sphere. Its electric flux is therefore $4\pi r^2{E}_r(r)$, givingOutside the distribution, doubling $r$ quadruples the surface area and divides the radial electric field by four, while the electric flux stays $Q/{\epsilon }_0$. The inverse-square dependence is an area-dilution result. The electric field of a uniformly charged ball and electric field of a uniformly charged spherical shell show that the same total charge can give different interior fields. These symmetry arguments and their limits are developed in OpenStax, applying Gauss's law.

Separation of charged molecules through a gel in an electric field. Denaturing conditions suppress folded structures, helping compare RNA lengths; matching migration alone does not establish an identical nucleotide sequence or identical covalent bonds. In the ribozyme experiments, labelled RNA was detected after separation by exposing photographic film.

In DNA agarose gel electrophoresis, the backbone phosphate groups carry negative electric charge under the usual mildly alkaline buffer solution conditions. DNA therefore moves toward the positive anode, away from the negative cathode.^[ref]

The electric field points the other way: the electric force $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$ reverses direction when $q<0$. The apparatus is driven by an external source of electric potential difference; the positive anode convention here belongs to that operating mode. Direction follows electric charge, so it is not a rule that all molecules move toward the same electrode.

The useful result is a spatial comparison: a mixture becomes separated gel bands, which can be compared with a DNA ladder or recovered for subsequent analysis. Agarose gel electrophoresis of linear double-stranded DNA, gel electrophoresis of denatured RNA, and SDS-PAGE of proteins use different conditions to make migration informative about chain size. An electric field supplies motion; the gel supplies a porous obstacle course.

The guided wavelength is the distance for a $2\pi$ change of axial wave phase in a propagating normal mode. For the vacuum-filled rectangular electromagnetic waveguide,for ${\mathrm{TE}}_{10}$, with ${\lambda }_0=c/f$ and $f>f_c$. It exceeds the vacuum wavelength at the same frequency. This longer axial spacing is consistent with $v_{\mathrm{ph}}>c$: multiplying ${\lambda }_g$ by $f$ gives the phase velocity, not the group velocity.

Two oppositely traveling fields at the same frequency form a standing wave. For a perfect electric short at $z=0$, the total electric field is proportional to $\sin (\beta z)\sin (\pi x/a)$, so successive axial electric nodes are separated byThus neighboring minima in a slotted line scan give half a guided wavelength. In the original $a=30\mathrm{mm}$, $f=1.25f_c$ example, $d=40\mathrm{mm}$ implies ${\lambda }_g=80\mathrm{mm}$, not $40\mathrm{mm}$. Combined with the chosen $f$, the inferred broad dimension is $a={\lambda }_0/[2\sqrt{1-({\lambda }_0/{\lambda }_g{)}^2}]=30\mathrm{mm}$. Below cutoff, $\beta$ is imaginary and $2\pi /\beta$ is not a physical periodic spacing.

The gyroradius is the radius of the transverse circular motion of a charged particle in a uniform magnetic field. In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, with zero electric field and no other forces, it is $m{v}_{\perp }/(|q|B)$, where $v_{\perp }$ is the speed perpendicular to the magnetic field. The parallel component of velocity changes the advance of the helix, rather than its transverse radius.

The Hall coefficient relates a transverse electric field to longitudinal current density and transverse magnetic field, with oriented axes as in the displayed formula. Its SI unit is ${\mathrm{m}}^3/C$. For one isotropic Drude model species it is $1/(nq)$; multiple charge carriers need not follow that formula.