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]

Combining the static London equations with the magnetostatic Ampère law and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ gives the displayed bulk equation for a uniform superconducting carrier density. A planar boundary gives exponentially decaying field on the London penetration depth scale; boundary geometry and vortices require their corresponding field solutions.

The Meissner effect is the equilibrium expulsion of a sufficiently weak, static magnetic field from the bulk of a material exhibiting superconductivity. Expulsion includes a magnetic field that was already present before cooling: zero electrical resistance alone does not predict this. The Field-cooled Meissner experiment tests that distinction. A finite London penetration depth means that the magnetic field and screening electric current occupy a surface layer, rather than disappearing at a mathematical boundary.^[ref]

This makes superconductivity useful for shielding weak magnetic fields, and makes its magnetic response an independent test of the phase. The striking result is that the same screened equilibrium can be reached by two different preparation histories. The assumptions matter: Finite-thickness Meissner screening can leave an appreciable magnetic field throughout a small sample, and the Limits of Meissner screening distinguish quantum vortex penetration and retained magnetic flux from this equilibrium state.

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.

The 1933 report Ein neuer Effekt bei Eintritt der Supraleitfähigkeit by W. Meissner and R. Ochsenfeld describes cooling tin and lead cylinders in a fixed transverse magnetic field. Two parallel cylinders were about $140\mathrm{mm}$ long and $3\mathrm{mm}$ thick, separated by $1.5\mathrm{mm}$. A roughly $10\mathrm{mm}$ rotating search coil between them drove a ballistic galvanometer. At about $5\mathrm{G}$, the reported below/above-transition induction ratios were $1.70$ for tin single crystals and $1.77$ for polycrystalline lead. The increased gap magnetic field indicates redistribution outside the cylinders, rather than an unchanged frozen field. Coil-winding geometry and noncircular tin specimens limited comparison with the ideal prediction. ^[ref]

Their second arrangement used a lead tube, about $130\mathrm{mm}$ long with $3\mathrm{mm}$ outer and $2\mathrm{mm}$ inner diameters. A rotating search coil could sit inside or alongside it. The bore retained magnetic flux after removing the applied magnetic field; the coil nearly filled the bore, preventing a test of interior field uniformity. A hole containing magnetic field is distinct from magnetic field penetrating the surrounding material exhibiting superconductivity. ^[ref]

The modern Field-cooled Meissner experiment provides a complementary readout. MIT's probe I places a sample in a brass holder, with an $810$-turn test coil of $7.1\mathrm{mm}$ inner diameter, $10.5\mathrm{mm}$ outer diameter and $12.3\mathrm{mm}$ length, inside a longer solenoid. A nearby silicon-diode thermometer tracks cooling by helium gas. With lead still normal, the guide applies about $200\mathrm{mA}$ to the solenoid and connects the test coil to a current-integrator box and oscilloscope. Cooling produces a transient; warming gives the opposite sign. Switching off the solenoid while the sample is normal checks the sign. ^[ref]

The inferred change is in linked magnetic flux, not a direct scan of $B(z)$. For a stationary test coil the pulse obeys $\int Vdt=-\Delta \Psi$, where $\Psi$ is its magnetic flux linkage. An integrator or AC-coupled oscilloscope needs its transfer response accounted for before extracting this pulse area. Keep the source electric current fixed during cooling, monitor temperature, and compare warming and cooling slowly enough to reduce sample–thermometer lag. An AC inductance change alone can reflect changed normal-state electrical conductivity; the fixed-field expulsion test distinguishes that alternative. ^[ref] Neither this coil readout nor the historical gap-field measurement resolves the microscopic London penetration depth by itself.

A Meissner state is an equilibrium state of superconductivity without quantum vortex penetration, with screening electric currents responding to the applied magnetic field. In a solid, simply connected sample much thicker than the London penetration depth, the deep interior magnetic field is approximately zero. This is a statement about a phase and a geometry, not a rule that every sample exhibiting superconductivity always has $\mathbf{B}=0$. In particular, the Meissner state exists for sufficiently weak magnetic fields in both type-I superconductors and type-II superconductors. ^[ref]

The clearest examples are the cuprate superconductors. Their unusual properties should be compared with the clean, weak-coupling, fully gapped s-wave electron–phonon limit of BCS theory; that limit is not a definition of all possible BCS-like paired states.

Cuprates are layered copper oxides with strongly anisotropic transport. Their undoped parents are antiferromagnetic Mott insulators or, more specifically for many compounds, charge-transfer insulators, despite partially filled bands in a simple band picture. Doping produces a superconducting dome rather than simply improving an ordinary weakly interacting metal. This points to strong electronic correlations. Near optimal doping, an extended temperature range often shows approximately linear electrical resistivity, termed strange-metal behaviour, instead of the low-temperature $T^2$ law of a conventional Fermi liquid. Neither law applies at every temperature and doping.

The dominant Cooper pair symmetry is spin-singlet $d_{x^2-y^2}$, with a representative gapIt changes sign under a quarter turn and has nodes on the zone diagonals. Phase-sensitive experiments detect that sign change; it is not established by a large transition temperature alone. ^[ref] Clean nodal quasiparticles give power-law low-temperature responses, for example electronic heat capacity $C\propto T^2$ and penetration-depth change $\lambda (T)-\lambda (0)\propto T$, in contrast with activated responses of a fully gapped s-wave state. Disorder, dimensional crossover and competing phases can alter these powers.

The cuprate pseudogap is a partial, momentum-dependent loss of low-energy electronic spectral weight extending above the superconducting transition in underdoped materials. It need not be identical to the superconducting gap, and observing it alone does not identify its microscopic origin or prove preformed pairs. ^[ref]

Short coherence lengths, anisotropy and low phase stiffness in underdoped systems make thermal phase and vortex fluctuations important. Many cuprates are strong type-II superconductors, with large London penetration depths relative to their superconducting coherence lengths. Gap-to-transition-temperature ratios and isotope effects vary with doping and need not obey the simplest weak-coupling benchmarks $2\Delta (0)/(k_{\mathrm{B}}{T}_c)=3.53$ and $T_c\propto M_{\mathrm{ion}}^{-1/2}$. A weak or variable isotope effect by itself does not identify the pairing mechanism.

These features motivate strongly correlated pairing descriptions, often involving spin fluctuations, but do not uniquely establish a microscopic pairing glue. Other high-temperature families need not share every cuprate property: iron-based superconductors are multiband and may be nodeless. The robust distinction is the observed combination of correlated normal states, unusual gap symmetry and important collective fluctuations, rather than high $T_c$ alone.

Cool a thick superconducting ring through its transition in a controlled external flux, remove or change the applied field while keeping the ring superconducting, and measure the persistent trapped flux using a calibrated pickup coil and sensitive magnetometer. Repeating while varying the cooling flux selects successive winding sectors. The measured flux is close to steps separated by ${\Phi }_0$ when the kinetic-inductance correction is negligible. A SQUID-based flux readout can resolve that spacing; scanning local magnetic imaging offers another way to observe the trapped flux without identifying the ring current with an ordinary dissipative transport current.

The experiment tests the phase-winding/fluxoid relation in a. Self-inductance, London penetration depth and the size of the ring determine how nearly the measured geometric flux follows integer steps. A periodic response alone should not be used to infer an absolute trapped flux without calibration and the relevant inductive corrections.

TODO — source figure gap: the surviving ordinary-ring and two-junction-ring outlines and labels are readable, but page 9's figure form calls 52 absent raster objects, /R514 through /R565. The original archived parent has identical damage. An intact figure is needed to recover any missing image-specific details; those raster components have not been inferred or recreated. The observation method above answers the physical request without requiring the unavailable artwork; the TODO concerns verification of the input illustration rather than a missing part of the solution. The original circuit schematic used in c is an independent diagram of the stated model, not a claimed reconstruction of the unavailable artwork.

The competition between magnetic screening over the London penetration depth $\lambda$ and condensate recovery over the superconducting coherence length $\xi$ is measured by the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa =\lambda /\xi$. In the single-component local theory the boundary is $\kappa =1/\sqrt{2}$. For $\kappa <1/\sqrt{2}$, a normal–superconducting interface has positive energy: a type-I superconductor favours macroscopic regions and a thermodynamic critical field $H_c$. Demagnetizing fields may create an intermediate state of normal and superconducting domains.

For $\kappa >1/\sqrt{2}$ the interface energy is negative. A type-II superconductor admits flux vortices between the lower and upper critical fields, with normal-like cores of size $\xi$ and circulating screening currents over $\lambda$. Each singly quantized vortex carries ${\Phi }_0=h/(2e)$; a vortex lattice and pinning-controlled irreversible response can occur. Pairing strength, carrier density, Fermi velocity and impurity scattering affect these lengths; $T_c$ alone does not determine the type. The stated boundary is the standard Ginzburg–Landau result near $T_c$.

The displayed horizontal variable is ${\mu }_{0}H$ in tesla. The source formulas written with a flux quantum actually have the dimensions of magnetic flux density, so define $B_{c1}={\mu }_0{H}_{c1}$ and $B_{c2}={\mu }_0{H}_{c2}$ when applying them:From the onset of curvature away from the low-field line in panel A, $B_{c1}$ is roughly $0.06\mathrm{T}$ with uncertainty of order $0.01\mathrm{T}$. Panel B's branches approach the normal background over approximately $2$–$3\mathrm{T}$; use $B_{c2}\simeq 2.5\mathrm{T}$ as a coarse central estimate. Resolving irreversible loop closure from the true thermodynamic upper field, and correcting demagnetization, would require better data and geometry. These readings support scales, not precise material constants.

The upper field givesThe leading-log critical-field inversion starts by dividing the two field formulas to eliminate $\xi$:The large-$\kappa$ solution is $\kappa \simeq 6.15$, henceThe penetration-depth range is an indicative graph/model scale, not a propagated confidence interval. There is a mathematical ambiguity worth making explicit: $f(\kappa )=\ln \kappa /(2{\kappa }^2)$ rises from zero at one, peaks at $\sqrt{e}$, then falls. The same central ratio also gives $\kappa \simeq 1.055$ and $\lambda \simeq 12.1\mathrm{nm}$, so the printed restriction $\kappa >1$ alone does not select a unique solution. The leading-log lower-field formula is intended for appreciably large $\kappa$, which motivates the $\kappa \simeq 6$ branch; near one it needs the omitted core-energy correction. Even the larger-branch estimate has systematic uncertainty from that approximation.

$\lambda$ is the London penetration depth, the magnetic screening scale, while $\xi$ is the superconducting coherence length, the recovery scale of the superconducting order parameter after spatial suppression. In the mixed state the complex order parameter vanishes in vortex cores of radius of order $\xi$, recovers between separated cores and winds in phase by $2\pi$ around each singly quantized vortex. Currents and magnetic field spread over scale $\lambda$; vortex density grows with the mean internal field according to $n_v{\Phi }_0=\overline{B}$. Near $H_{c2}$ cores overlap and the order-parameter amplitude becomes small throughout the sample. A schematic core profile appears in solution.

The hysteresis is not the reversible equilibrium magnetization: defects pin vortices, so entry and exit leave different spatial flux distributions. Macroscopic currents oppose changes in flux, trapped vortices give remanence, and depinning and creep depend on history and temperature. Surface barriers can also contribute. The loop width probes an irreversible current scale, but its conversion to current density additionally needs sample geometry and an appropriate critical-state model.

Let $x$ cross the barrier from electrode 1 to 2, let $z$ run along its width, and take $\mathbf{B}=B\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. In the ideal barrier-only model choose $A_x=Bz$, which has $(\nabla \times \mathbf{A}{)}_y=B$. Then the crossing integral at fixed $z$ is $Btz$. With the sign convention used in the source,Reversing the field or the phase orientation reverses the slope and does not change the interference envelope. The same result follows by comparing two paths across the junction and using the enclosed magnetic flux.

If field penetration into thick identical electrodes is included, the effective magnetic thickness is approximately $t_{\mathrm{eff}}=t+2{\lambda }_L$, where ${\lambda }_L$ is the London penetration depth. Replace $t$ and $\Phi$ consistently by $t_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $B{t}_{\mathrm{eff}}W$. The linear phase profile assumes a uniform applied field and negligible magnetic self-field of the junction current.

Use SI units and normalize the condensate wavefunction so $|\psi {|}^2=n$. With mechanical momentum operator $-i\hslash \nabla -qA$, the charge current density isFor uniform $n$ and $\psi =\sqrt{n}{e}^{i\vartheta }$, this becomes $j=(nq/m)(\hslash \nabla \vartheta -qA)$.

Under the gauge transformation $A\mapsto A+\nabla \chi$, the wavefunction transforms as $\psi \mapsto e^{iq\chi /\hslash }\psi$, so $\vartheta \mapsto \vartheta +q\chi /\hslash$. The two added gradients cancel in $\hslash \nabla \vartheta -qA$, while $|\psi {|}^2$ stays fixed. Thus the superconducting current is gauge invariant. The same cancellation in the full displayed current proves it without requiring a constant amplitude.

For uniform carrier density in a region with smooth single-valued phase, taking a curl gives the London equation $\nabla \times j=-n{q}^{2}B/m$. In the time-independent setting Ampère's circuital law gives $\nabla \times B={\mu }_{0}j$, and Gauss's law for magnetism gives $\nabla \cdot B=0$. Thereforeso the Helmholtz equation and London penetration depth areThe equation has the modified, exponentially decaying Helmholtz sign. For a planar surface at $x=0$ with material in $x>0$, the bounded solution is $B(x)=B(0)e^{-x/\ell }$; the exponentially growing solution is excluded in the bulk. Hence a macroscopic region far from the surface has negligible field: magnetic flux is expelled from the bulk, the Meissner effect. The literal assertion of zero flux everywhere is the bulk limit: finite penetration remains within distance $\ell$ of a surface. Vortices or flux trapped through a hole require different phase or topology assumptions and are not ruled out by this smooth-phase derivation.

Write the superconducting order parameter as $\psi =\sqrt{n_s}{e}^{i\vartheta }$, with carrier mass $m$. Minimal electromagnetic coupling gives mechanical momentum $\hslash \nabla \vartheta -q\mathbf{A}$, so the current density isIt also follows by substituting $\psi$ into $(q\hslash /m)\mathrm{Im}({\psi }^{\ast }\nabla \psi )-(q^2/m)|\psi {|}^2\mathbf{A}$. In a gauge where the phase is constant, this reduces to the London equation $\mathbf{j}=-n_s{q}^2\mathbf{A}/m$.

Under $\mathbf{A}\mapsto \mathbf{A}+\nabla \chi$, the phase changes by $\vartheta \mapsto \vartheta +q\chi /\hslash$. The two gradient changes cancel, proving gauge invariance of the actual current. A formula omitting the phase term is valid only in its chosen gauge.

For a uniform superconductor without vortices, taking a curl gives $\nabla \times \mathbf{j}=-n_s{q}^2\mathbf{B}/m$. Combine this with the stationary Ampère's law $\nabla \times \mathbf{B}={\mu }_0\mathbf{j}$ and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ to obtainFor a magnetic field parallel to the planar interface, translation symmetry reduces the equation to ${\mathbf{B}}^{\prime \prime }=\mathbf{B}/{\lambda }_L^2$. Boundedness and decay as $z\to \infty$, together with the tangential boundary value, give the Meissner effectHere ${\lambda }_L$ is the London penetration depth.

The parallel-field assumption is necessary for this one-dimensional Meissner solution. If the printed arbitrary constant ${\mathbf{B}}_0$ has a nonzero normal component, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ forces that component to be constant across a translation-invariant half-space, whereas the London equation forces it to vanish. Thus no decaying planar Meissner state with that boundary value exists; one must change the geometry or allow a different magnetic state.

The London penetration depth measures the density-to-mass ratio of carriers participating in superconducting screening. With electron-counted density $n_s$ and the stipulated bare electron mass $m_e$,Using $m_e=9.109\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$, $e=1.602\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$, ${\mu }_0\simeq 4\pi \times 10^{-7}\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and ${\lambda }_L=22\times 10^{-9}\mathrm{m}$ givesThis is the requested conduction-electron density within the assumed local London equation model. More precisely, it is the superconducting carrier density from London screening; identifying it with all conduction electrons assumes that they participate in screening at the measurement temperature. No temperature-dependent normal-carrier fraction is supplied.

If the condensate is instead counted as Cooper pairs, the pair mass is $2m_e$ and charge magnitude is $2e$, giving pair density $n_{\mathrm{pair}}=n_s/2\simeq 2.9\times 10^{28}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Keeping electron and pair counting consistent avoids a spurious factor of two.

For conventional superconductivity, an attractive interaction pairs opposite-spin fermions. A complex pairing Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation introduces a Cooper pair field $\Delta$. The fermionic fields then appear quadratically, giving the pair-field effective action of a superconductorThe trace convention counts each independent spin-pair block once. The uniform saddle is the BCS gap equation; the fermionic excitations have $E_k=\sqrt{{\xi }_k^2+|\Delta {|}^2}$ in the fully gapped case. A slow-field expansion near the transition yields Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity. Normalize its pair field $\Psi$ so $|\Psi {|}^2$ is an effective pair density, with pair mass $m_{\ast }$ and signed charge $q=-2e$:For $a<0$, the uniform minimum has ${\rho }_0=|\Psi {|}^2=-a/b$, with arbitrary constant phase. Writing $\Psi =(\sqrt{{\rho }_0}+h)e^{i\theta }$ separates the amplitude mode $h$ from the phase. The local potential has curvature term $2|a|h^2$ and coherence scale $\xi =\hslash /\sqrt{2m_{\ast }|a|}$. A neutral condensate has a gapless phase Goldstone mode when suitable dynamics is included.

The charged theory is invariant underThe gauge-invariant condensate momentum is $\hslash \nabla \theta -q\mathbf{A}$. Only $\hslash \nabla \theta -q\mathbf{A}$ and $\hslash \dot{\theta }+q\varphi$ enter physical phase dynamics. At nearly constant amplitude, varying $F$ givesFor a smooth phase, taking the curl and using Ampère's law gives ${\nabla }^2\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}/{\lambda }^2$: the Meissner effect screens a static bulk magnetic field over the London penetration depth $\lambda$. In a gauge with $\theta =0$, the phase stiffness is a quadratic term in $\mathbf{A}$, the superconducting version of the Higgs mechanism.

To identify the dynamical mode, a simple lossless long-wave superconducting phase-density action isHere ${\chi }_p$ is the pair compressibility coefficient. Eliminating the longitudinal electric potential givesThus the neutral sound mode becomes a gapped longitudinal plasma oscillation; transverse electromagnetic waves acquire ${\omega }^2=c_{\mathrm{vac}}^2{k}^2+c_{\mathrm{vac}}^2/{\lambda }^2$ in this simple bulk model. This redistribution of the phase degree of freedom into electromagnetic collective modes is the Anderson-Higgs mechanism in a superconductor. Local gauge symmetry is a redundancy, not an independently observable symmetry whose breaking creates another massless particle. ^[ref]

The static functional alone does not determine a frequency or damping rate. The displayed mode dispersions require the added dynamical assumptions; real screening, normal carriers, boundaries and dissipation modify them. The amplitude fluctuation is distinct from the phase mode and is not removed by the gauge choice.

A neutral superfluid has a complex order parameter whose phase describes coherent particle transport. For a Bose condensate it is represented by a field amplitude; for a paired Fermi superfluid it is a pair amplitude. In a symmetry-breaking description, selecting its phase breaks the global particle-number $U(1)$ symmetry. A common phase shift leaves the energy unchanged, while a phase gradient costs energy and produces superfluid velocity. Long-wavelength phase oscillations give a gapless Goldstone mode, generally a sound wave when density fluctuations provide the conjugate dynamics. A finite isolated state with exact particle number need not have a nonzero field expectation: the phase-selected language describes the ordered limit and relative-phase coherence.

In a superconductor, the paired order parameter carries charge of magnitude $2e$ and couples to the electromagnetic field. The meaningful spatial phase combination is $\hslash \nabla \theta -q\mathbf{A}$, with signed pair charge $q$. Gauge symmetry is a redundancy, so “breaking local gauge symmetry” is not a literal breaking of a measurable physical symmetry. The gauge-invariant electromagnetic response includes the Meissner effect and a finite London penetration depth. Long-range Coulomb forces move the would-be neutral phase mode to a plasma scale through the Anderson-Higgs mechanism in a superconductor.

Additional symmetries can be broken by particular pairing states. Conventional isotropic spin-singlet pairing need not break spatial rotations or time reversal. A d-wave superconductor has a gap transforming nontrivially under crystal symmetries, and some triplet or multicomponent states can also break spin-rotation or time-reversal symmetries. These additional choices are not required by superconductivity itself. A nonzero pairing amplitude, phase coherence and electromagnetic screening describe related but distinct aspects of the ordered state.

The superconducting gap function is a momentum-dependent pairing amplitude $\Delta (\mathbf{k})$, including a phase as well as a magnitude. A fully gapped isotropic state and a state with symmetry-required nodes can have different low-temperature responses. Heat capacity, thermal transport, London penetration depth and tunnelling spectra probe the low-energy quasiparticle spectrum. Activated behavior suggests a nonzero minimum gap; power laws can indicate nodes. For example, clean line nodes give a penetration-depth correction linear in temperature, whereas disorder can change the apparent power.

Such magnitude-sensitive probes require care: impurities, several bands, anisotropic full gaps and surface states can imitate or modify simple expectations. A node does not by itself establish a particular sign pattern, and the absence of a coherence peak is not a complete symmetry determination. The strongest identification combines momentum-sensitive spectra with phase-sensitive superconducting gap experiments.

For an illustrative $d_{x^2-y^2}$ state, $\Delta (\phi )\propto \cos 2\phi$ changes sign under a $90^{\circ }$ rotation. A Josephson junction to a conventional s-wave reference can turn that sign into an intrinsic phase shift. In a corner DC SQUID with junctions on orthogonal crystal faces, one branch can acquire an extra $\pi$ relative to the other. For equal junctions and negligible loop inductance,Changing ${\delta }_{\mathrm{int}}$ from zero to $\pi$ shifts the interference pattern by half a flux period. The 1993 YBCO–Pb experiment compared phase-coherent junction geometries and found evidence for that sign reversal, while explicitly discussing SQUID asymmetry and trapped vortices. Those controls matter: an arbitrary shifted trace is not by itself a proof of pairing symmetry.^[ref]

A tricrystal half-flux experiment arranges grain-boundary junctions so that a sign-changing order parameter produces an odd total $\pi$ shift around a ring. Fluxoid consistency then favors a half-integer flux state, with the detailed spontaneous flux depending on loop inductance and junction strengths. Choosing comparison geometries without that frustration and controlling trapped external flux separates the pairing-phase effect from ordinary flux trapping.^[ref]

The conclusion is strongest when the same candidate symmetry explains nodes, crystal-axis dependence and these phase-sensitive interference results. The phase-sensitive observation distinguishes a sign-changing gap from a merely anisotropic positive gap; no single temperature power law supplies that distinction.

Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity organizes a continuous superconducting transition through a slowly varying complex order parameter. In the simplest isotropic single-component SI model,Here $\beta >0$, $m_{\ast }>0$, $\alpha$ changes sign at $T_c$, and $q=-2e$ fixes a charge/phase convention. The phenomenological normalization of $\psi$ determines the coefficient values; it should not be confused without qualification with a literal density of independently identifiable pairs.

Microscopic derivation of Ginzburg-Landau theory expands the BCS response near $T_c$ in small gap amplitude and slow spatial gradients. It identifies the complex order parameter with a scaled pair amplitude, supplies the coefficients from the electronic microscopic parameters, and explains the pair charge in the gauge coupling. The agreement is a controlled near-transition limit, not a statement that the truncated local functional remains exact at all temperatures. Lev Gor'kov established this connection explicitly in 1959.^[ref]

Below the transition, minimization gives $|{\psi }_0{|}^2=-\alpha /\beta$ and condensation-energy density ${\alpha }^2/(2\beta )$. A variation with respect to ${\psi }^{\ast }$ givesVariation with respect to $\mathbf{A}$ gives the supercurrentcoupled to the magnetostatic Ampère law. For nearly uniform amplitude this reduces to London screening and the Meissner effect. The theory supplies two different length scales:The amplitude can vary over the superconducting coherence length, whereas the magnetic field is screened over the London penetration depth.

The surface-energy distinction at $\kappa =1/\sqrt{2}$ explains why type-I and type-II behavior are possible within the same framework. In the type-II regime, quantized winding produces an Abrikosov vortex with a finite core and circulating current. Periodic solutions yield an Abrikosov vortex lattice. Linearization about the normal state gives $B_{c2}={\Phi }_0/(2\pi {\xi }^2)$, while core and field energetics determine the lower entry field. These predictions connect a spatial field theory to measurable vortex patterns and critical fields, beyond a spatially uniform BCS gap equation. Thin-film critical-field observations helped motivate the large-$\kappa$ regime; magnetic-decoration experiments subsequently made vortex positions visible.^[ref]

These phenomena also enable applications. Type-II conductors support high-field magnets, but flux pinning is needed to limit vortex-motion losses. Phase coherence and fluxoid quantization permit persistent-current loops and interference devices. A weak link supplies Josephson coupling energy, allowing SQUID magnetometry and nonlinear quantum circuits; a junction's detailed current–phase law requires a weak-link model, rather than following automatically from the spatially uniform bulk functional. Microstructure can raise a useful critical current without greatly changing the equilibrium upper field, illustrating the difference between thermodynamic stability and transport performance.

The simple functional has identifiable limits. Far below $T_c$, the small-gap expansion is uncontrolled; rapidly varying fields can require nonlocal microscopic electrodynamics. Very near a transition in a fluctuating low-dimensional or strongly anisotropic material, mean-field minimization can miss important thermal or quantum fluctuations. Unconventional or multiband pairing can require several order-parameter components and additional gradient couplings. Strong fields can introduce spin-polarization pair breaking omitted by the orbital model. Finally, the static functional predicts equilibrium extrema, not quasiparticle spectra, dissipation, vortex velocities or a unique amplitude-mode frequency without further dynamical input. These are reasons to choose an appropriate extension or a microscopic calculation, not reasons to discard the successful near-transition predictions.

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]

In a local London equation description, the measured London penetration depth satisfies ${\lambda }_L^2=m/({\mu }_0{n}_s{e}^2)$ when $n_s$ counts superconducting electrons and $m$ is their effective mass. Thus screening measures $n_s/m$. If instead one counts Cooper pairs, use pair mass $2m$ and pair electric charge $-2e$, giving pair density $n_s/2$ for the same screening length. Identifying this superconducting carrier density with the total conduction-electron density requires the additional assumption that the relevant carriers all participate in screening at the measurement temperature.