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]

To isolate finite size from quantum vortex penetration, keep the same weak-field London equations but replace the half-space by an infinite slab $-d/2\le z\le d/2$. Put equal tangential magnetic fields $B_0\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ at its two faces. With $z=0$ now at the slab center, the even solution and its signed current density areThe hyperbolic cosine profile has equal boundary values, while the electric currents on the two sides have opposite signs. In particular,For the stipulated thickness $d=2{\lambda }_L$, the center retains about $0.648B_0$ and the mean is about $0.762B_0$, even though this is a Meissner state. For $d\gg {\lambda }_L$, the center magnetic field is exponentially small and the mean is about $2{\lambda }_L{B}_0/d$, reflecting the two surface layers. For $d\ll {\lambda }_L$, the mean tends to $B_0$: little screening is possible across such a short distance. These are analytic model examples, not material measurements. Real finite objects also need their demagnetizing field and edge geometry accounted for; the slab calculation only isolates the effect of thickness.

Compare two ideal models for a stationary, solid, simply connected sample. In the perfect conductor flux-history model the interior electric field is constrained to zero from the moment perfect conduction starts. Faraday's law of induction then givesConsequently the interior magnetic field retains its value at that moment. Cooling in an already applied magnetic field freezes a nonzero interior value; starting perfect conduction in zero magnetic field and then applying a magnetic field preserves zero. The zero initial interior magnetic field often assumed in perfect conductor wave-reflection problems is one particular preparation, not a general prediction of expulsion. ^[ref]

The Meissner state instead selects the screened equilibrium after either preparation, provided that equilibrium is accessible and the applied magnetic field lies in the Meissner state regime. The first London equation alone illustrates the missing information: at fixed ${\lambda }_L$, combining it with Faraday's law of induction givesThis permits an arbitrary time-independent integration field. The second London equation imposes the additional zero value of that bracket in the vortex-free local model.^[ref] Establishing superconductivity during cooling is not the fixed-parameter, zero-electric field model: transient electric fields accompany changing magnetic flux, and ${\lambda }_L$ itself depends on temperature. The equilibrium London equations predict final spatial screening, not the cooling rate or the time-resolved expulsion pulse.

Take a homogeneous material exhibiting superconductivity in the half-space $z\ge 0$, bounded by vacuum at $z=0$. Fix the temperature below the superconducting transition temperature, take a constant positive London penetration depth ${\lambda }_L$, and assume a local, linear London equation description in a Meissner state. The applied magnetic field is weak enough that it neither nucleates a quantum vortex nor appreciably suppresses the material's superconductivity. Assume translation invariance in $x,y$, no imposed transport electric current, and a tangential boundary magnetic field $\mathbf{B}(0)=B_0\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. Here $B_0$ is the local surface magnetic flux density, equal to the imposed vacuum magnetic field in this infinite planar geometry; it is not automatically the far-away applied value for a finite object.

For a bounded, decaying interior solution, the London equations, magnetostatic Ampère law and Gauss's law for magnetism giveThe solution isAt one London penetration depth the magnetic field is $e^{-1}\simeq 0.368$ of its surface value; at five it is $e^{-5}\simeq 0.00674$. There is no finite depth where this exponential is exactly zero. The differential equation excludes the growing exponential through the deep-interior boundary condition. A constant normal component cannot decay in this geometry: Gauss's law for magnetism would require ${\partial }_z{B}_z=0$. A perpendicular applied magnetic field on a finite plate therefore requires a different spatial problem.^[ref]

Superconductivity is a phase of matter that supports steady electric current with zero bulk electrical resistivity and exhibits the Meissner effect: equilibrium screening of a sufficiently weak, static magnetic field from the interior. It occurs below a material-dependent superconducting transition temperature, provided the electric current and applied magnetic field are also sufficiently small. ^[ref] Bulk expulsion means that a sample much thicker than its London penetration depth has an almost field-free interior; the magnetic field need not vanish at its surface. Conventional BCS theory explains superconductivity through correlated Electrons forming Cooper pairs. ^[ref]

The two observations answer different questions. A resistance-versus-temperature experiment for superconductivity asks whether a steady electric current requires a measurable electric potential difference. A Field-cooled Meissner experiment asks whether a magnetic field already present in the material is expelled when it enters superconductivity. An ideal perfect conductor with zero electrical resistivity can preserve that pre-existing magnetic field; zero electrical resistance alone therefore does not establish the Meissner effect.

The usefulness follows directly from Joule heating, $P=I^{2}R$: maintaining a steady electric current through a segment with zero electrical resistance produces no resistive heating in that segment. This makes persistent electric currents attractive for producing steady magnetic fields. The beauty is that one phase has both a transport property and an equilibrium magnetic response, and the second cannot be inferred just by making an ordinary electrical resistance very small. The London equations encode this extra magnetic response. ^[ref]