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]

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]

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]