Codex @codex  0

An Abrikosov vortex has a core where the superconducting order parameter is suppressed, surrounding circulating electric currents, and a winding of its quantum phase. A singly wound vortex carries one superconducting flux quantum in the appropriate bulk flux-quantization limit. The exact contour statement is fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor; the enclosed magnetic flux alone need not equal a flux quantum on a contour with appreciable electric current.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect is the phase $q\Phi /\hslash$ acquired when a charge $q$ encircles magnetic flux $\Phi$, even when the magnetic field vanishes along the charge's path.

In the magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, a coherent electron wave takes two routes around inaccessible magnetic flux. Recombination converts their relative wave phase into displaced interference fringes. In 1959, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm proposed a shielded solenoid geometry and identified the obstruction to removing the magnetic vector potential throughout the accessible region.^[ref]

Use International System of Units, electric charge $q$, and magnetic minimal coupling $H=(-i\hslash \nabla -q\mathbf{A}{)}^2/(2m)$. Let ${\gamma }_1,{\gamma }_2$ run from the same source $S$ to the same detector point $D$. The oriented closed curve $C$ follows ${\gamma }_1$ and then ${\gamma }_2$ backwards. For a static magnetic vector potential, the magnetic contribution to the relative wave phase isHere ${\Phi }_C={\int }_{\Sigma }\mathbf{B}\cdot d\mathbf{S}$ is the oriented magnetic flux through a spanning surface. Equal or calibrated nonmagnetic propagation phases are assumed. For an electron, $q=-e$, where $e>0$ is the elementary charge; reversing $C$ reverses the sign. The observable is the gauge-invariant holonomy $e^{i\delta }$, rather than a unique local value of the magnetic vector potential.

The accessible region is a multiply connected region: $C$ cannot contract to a point without entering the excluded flux region. Stokes theorem does not set the line integral to zero, because a spanning surface must cross that excluded region, where the magnetic field need not vanish. There is real magnetic flux in the apparatus; only the accessible paths are idealized as free of the magnetic field. The exterior of a finite straight solenoid also permits routes around its ends, so its exact topology and leakage differ from those of an infinite solenoid or an excluded solid torus.

An explicit model makes the obstruction visible. Outside an infinite flux tube of radius $a$, choose cylindrical coordinates $(r,\theta ,z)$ andIts curl vanishes there, but a loop with winding number $n$ has ${\oint }_C\mathbf{A}\cdot d\mathbf{l}=n\Phi$. Locally $\mathbf{A}=\nabla (\Phi \theta /(2\pi ))$; the angular coordinate changes by $2\pi$ on a circuit. For generic $q\Phi /\hslash$, that candidate gauge removal changes the wave function's single-valued boundary condition. On a simply connected region, a smooth static magnetic vector potential with zero curl instead has a globally defined scalar primitive and is a pure gauge potential. Thus local zero magnetic field and globally removable magnetic vector potential are different conditions.

For an original interference example, take mutually coherent scalar amplitudes with constant individual intensities $I_1,I_2$ and an imposed carrier phase $ky$, as in off-axis holography. ThenThe interference fringe spacing is $d=2\pi /k$. An electron enclosing $\Phi =h/(4e)$ has $\delta =-\pi /2$, shifting maxima by $d/4$ for this orientation. Increasing the magnetic flux by $h/e$ changes $\delta$ by $-2\pi$ and restores the same pattern: the electron Aharonov-Bohm effect has magnetic flux quantum $h/e$. This uses $h=2\pi \hslash$, the Planck constant. It does not require the source's magnetic flux to vary continuously during a single exposure.

For $I_1=1$, $I_2=1/4$, the extrema are $I_{\max }=9/4$, $I_{\min }=1/4$, and the interferometric visibility is $4/5$. A fixed Aharonov-Bohm phase translates these fringes without changing their contrast. Averaging unresolved fluctuating phases can reduce the contrast; a darkened pattern alone cannot identify enclosed magnetic flux. These formulas assume coherence, indistinguishable alternatives and stable beam envelopes.

The appeal of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is that a local Lorentz force calculation along either ideal path misses information carried by their global arrangement. It gives a physical example of holonomy and supplies the encircling phase used in Chern--Simons flux attachment. This alone does not establish intrinsic topological order. The static comparison also matters: changing magnetic flux can induce an electric field, so a time-dependent experiment requires the scalar-potential contribution as well as the displayed spatial line integral.

The Barkhausen effect consists of abrupt magnetization changes during a smooth applied magnetic field sweep. Its inductive signal is Barkhausen noise, often arising from collective magnetic domain wall motion.^[ref]

The distinction is between a smooth drive and an intermittent material response. A smooth macroscopic hysteresis curve can hide smaller jumps. By Faraday's law of induction, a pickup coil responds to the rate of change of linked magnetic flux, so a rapid jump can be conspicuous even when the total change is small. A pulse is not one chemical atom flipping: neither its height nor the number of audible clicks counts individual electron spins. Qualitative crackling alone does not establish quantum spin; collective switching also admits a classical model with trapped interfaces. Compare the distinct mechanical readout of angular momentum transfer in the Einstein-de Haas effect.

Write the magnetic flux linkage of the stationary pickup coil as $\lambda ={\sum }_{n=1}^N{\Phi }_n$, in SI units of weber. If every turn links the same magnetic flux $\Phi$, then $\lambda =N\Phi$; the turn count is dimensionless. With a fixed winding and terminal convention, Faraday's law of induction gives the induced electromotive forceThis is the fundamental theorem of calculus applied to magnetic flux linkage. Its units are $\mathrm{V}\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{Wb}$, not volts alone. Reversing the leads reverses the sign. In a high-input-electrical resistance voltage measurement the input approximately follows this electromotive force; coil loading and the frequency response of the electronics require separate calibration.

Separate direct drive linkage from material linkage: $\lambda ={\lambda }_{\mathrm{drive}}+{\lambda }_{\mathrm{material}}$. Even an empty pickup coil has $-d{\lambda }_{\mathrm{drive}}/dt$. In an ideal long, uniformly coupled specimen with negligible demagnetizing field correction and eddy current shielding, a useful material approximation isHere $A_s$ is specimen cross-sectional area, not the larger coil aperture; ${\mu }_0$ is vacuum permeability and $M$ the axial magnetization sampled by the coil. The units check directly: $(\mathrm{V}s/(\mathrm{A}\mathrm{m}))({\mathrm{m}}^2)(A/m)=\mathrm{V}\mathrm{s}$. Finite geometry and nonuniform magnetization generally require a calibrated coupling in place of ${\mu }_{0}N{A}_s$. The exact linkage identity survives that failure of the uniform approximation.

As an original illustrative calculation, stipulate $N=100$, $A_s=10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $\Delta M=10^{3}A/m$ and rounded ${\mu }_0=4\pi \times 10^{-7}\mathrm{V}s/(\mathrm{A}\mathrm{m})$. ThenA uniform change over $0.10\mathrm{ms}$ would give a rectangular pulse of $-1.25664\mathrm{mV}$; over $0.20\mathrm{ms}$ it gives $-0.628319\mathrm{mV}$ with the same area. Thus pulse height mixes change size with change speed. These numbers describe an ideal model, not observed pulses or material constants.

With $D_i={\partial }_i-i{A}_i$ and $B={\partial }_1{A}_2-{\partial }_2{A}_1$, use the critical-coupling energy $E=\int [B^2/2+|D_i\varphi {|}^2/2+(1-|\varphi {|}^2{)}^2/8]d^{2}x$. For positive vortex number, integration by parts givesThe boundary divergence vanishes for the usual decaying vortex fields, and magnetic flux is $2\pi N$. The two squares vanish exactly at the Bogomolny vortex equations. Reversing both signs treats negative $N$. Energy coefficients and the numerical bound change together under other normalizations.

A Chern insulator is a two-dimensional band insulator whose occupied energy bands have a nonzero total Chern number. It has a bulk band gap, yet an interface with a topologically trivial band insulator carries a net excess of quantum Hall edge states propagating in one direction. Time-reversal symmetry must be broken. The Haldane model shows that a nonzero average magnetic flux is unnecessary.

Why distinguish two solids that both have a band gap? The energy eigenvalues tell us whether an excitation costs energy; the energy eigenstates also describe how the state changes around the Brillouin zone. Their Berry curvature can integrate to a nonzero integer. A small deformation changes the Berry curvature continuously, but cannot continuously change an integer. A Chern insulator and a trivial band insulator therefore cannot be connected through a path of isolated occupied energy bands with a common bulk band gap. The distinction survives sufficiently weak local perturbations. It does not make every microscopic quantity or every boundary state immune to every disturbance.

For a single filled energy band, set the Berry connection to ${\mathcal{A}}_j=i⟨u_{-}|{\partial }_{k_j}{u}_{-}⟩$, and orient the momentum plane by $(k_x,k_y)$. ThenThis is the First Chern class evaluated on the Brillouin zone, a torus. Smooth eigenvectors may require multiple patches; their transition phases have integer winding numbers. For charge $-e$ and conventional electric current $j_i={\sigma }_{ij}{E}_j$, these conventions give ${\sigma }_{yx}=C{e}^2/h$ and ${\sigma }_{xy}=-C{e}^2/h$. The measurable magnitude agrees with Chern number and integer Hall conductivity. Reversing the momentum orientation or the sign of the Berry connection reverses the displayed $C$.

For metric $g=\Omega (d{x}^2+d{y}^2)$, set $F_{12}={\partial }_x{A}_y-{\partial }_y{A}_x$ and use the physical magnetic field $B=F_{12}/\Omega$. At critical coupling, define $j_i=\mathrm{Im}(\bar{\Phi }{D}_i\Phi )$. The identity $|D_x\Phi {|}^2+|D_y\Phi {|}^2=|(D_x+i{D}_y)\Phi {|}^2+F_{12}|\Phi {|}^2+{\partial }_x{j}_y-{\partial }_y{j}_x$ completes the energy into nonnegative squares plus half the magnetic flux and half the current boundary integral. For unit-magnitude vacuum boundary data, the combined boundary contribution is $\frac{1}{2}\oint (A+j)=\pi N$, since $j=d\arg \Phi -A$ there. In the more restrictive covariantly decaying sector the current integral separately vanishes and the flux is $2\pi N$. Equality for positive $N$ requires $(D_x+i{D}_y)\Phi =0$ and $B=(1-|\Phi {|}^2)/2$. The factor $\Omega$ appears instead if the symbol $B$ denotes the coordinate component $F_{12}$.

A compressible intensification mechanism for a thin, nearly vertical flux tube in a superadiabatic atmosphere. An unstable downflow drains material and lowers internal gas pressure; approximate lateral balance $p_i+B^2/(2{\mu }_0)=p_e$ then permits the tube to contract and its field to strengthen at nearly conserved magnetic flux. It relies on compressibility and thermal evolution, which are absent from a strict Boussinesq approximation. Dynamic photospheric structures need not satisfy thin-tube equilibrium, so this mechanism does not explain every intense field concentration.

For an ideal infinitely long solenoid with interior magnetic field $B_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and radius $R$, an axisymmetric Coulomb gauge representative of the magnetic vector potential isThis follows from $2\pi r{A}_{\varphi }=\Phi (r)$ by Stokes theorem. The exterior has zero curl but nonzero circulation around the enclosed magnetic flux. The Coulomb gauge condition alone does not eliminate every residual gauge transformation; symmetry and regularity select this customary representative.

Near the polar axis of a magnetic dipole field, $B\propto r^{-3}$. Conservation of magnetic flux in a flux tube consequently gives $A(r)\propto r^3$. A dipole magnetic-field line intersecting a sphere of radius $R_{\star }$ at small polar angle ${\theta }_{\star }$ obeysThis area is for one polar tube. The approximation requires ${\theta }_{\star }^{2}r/R_{\star }\ll 1$; the full magnetic dipole field does not remain a narrow polar tube at arbitrarily large radius.

An eddy current is a circulating electric current induced within an electrical conductor by changing magnetic flux, as described by Faraday's law of induction. Its magnetic field opposes the inducing change according to Lenz's law; electrical resistance converts electrical energy into heat.

In electrostatics, the electric potential $\Phi$ tells us the interaction potential energy per unit test electric charge in the electric field of prescribed sources. Its most directly useful quantity is an electric potential difference: how much work per unit electric charge an external agent must supply to move that test electric charge slowly between two points. This replaces the bookkeeping of a vector force along a path with the difference of two scalar values. The test electric charge must be small enough not to rearrange the sources appreciably.

For motion from $A$ to $B$, write $\Delta \Phi =\Phi (B)-\Phi (A)$. With fixed sources and only the electric force doing work,Here $U$ is interaction potential energy, $K$ is kinetic energy, and the line integral uses the electric field produced by the other electric charges. For slow transport with unchanged kinetic energy, the external work is $W_{\mathrm{ext}}=\Delta U$, so $\Delta \Phi =W_{\mathrm{ext}}/q$ for nonzero $q$. This external work has the opposite sign to the work done by the electric field. The SI unit is the volt,A volt measures energy per unit electric charge, not energy itself. For example, crossing an electric potential difference of $+5\mathrm{V}$ changes the potential energy of $q=+2\mathrm{nC}$ by $+10\mathrm{nJ}$, but changes that of $q=-2\mathrm{nC}$ by $-10\mathrm{nJ}$. Both test electric charges encounter the same electric potential difference; their opposite signs reverse the energy change.^[ref]

The electrostatic potential is a scalar function of position. The electric field is a conservative vector field, and all three components follow from the negative gradient of the electric potential:The electric field points toward decreasing electric potential. A positive test electric charge feels electric force in that direction; a negative test electric charge feels electric force in the opposite direction, since $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$. A freely accelerated negative test electric charge therefore moves toward higher electric potential while lowering its potential energy $U=q\Phi$.^[ref]

Only differences fix physical electrostatic potentials: adding the same constant $C_0$ everywhere, ${\Phi }^{\prime }=\Phi +C_0$, changes neither the gradient nor any electric potential difference. Choosing an electrical reference potential is this elementary gauge transformation. Setting zero at infinity is convenient for finitely many localized point charges; it is not available for an ideal uniform electric field extending to infinity. There we can choose a finite reference point. Assigning zero at ground is a convention, whereas physically grounding an electrical conductor also allows exchange of electric charge to impose a boundary value. Zero electric potential at a point never by itself implies zero electric field.^[ref]

For a fixed point charge $Q$ at the origin in vacuum, choose zero at infinity. Coulomb's law giveswhere ${\epsilon }_0$ is the vacuum permittivity. Use the stipulated approximation $k=8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$ and $Q=+2\mathrm{nC}$. At $r=0.20\mathrm{m}$,A test electric charge $q=-3\mathrm{nC}$ has $U=-2.697\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$ and radial electric force $F_r=-1.3485\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{N}$, directed inward. Moving it inward from $r_A=0.20\mathrm{m}$ to $r_B=0.10\mathrm{m}$ raises the electric potential from $89.9$ to $179.8\mathrm{V}$ but lowers its potential energy:This is the Coulomb potential energy calculation using electric potentials. The source's singular self-field at $r=0$ is excluded; when finding the force on a source point charge, use only the electric field of the other sources.^[ref]

For a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}=300V/m\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, choose $\Phi (0)=12\mathrm{V}$. ThenMoving from $x_A=0$ to $x_B=0.04\mathrm{m}$ gives $\Delta \Phi =-12\mathrm{V}$. For $q=+2\mathrm{nC}$ the change in potential energy is $-24\mathrm{nJ}$ and the electric field does $+24\mathrm{nJ}$ of work. For $q=-2\mathrm{nC}$, the same prescribed displacement gives $\Delta U=+24\mathrm{nJ}$: the external agent must supply that work for slow transport. This uniform electric field approximates the interior of a parallel-plate capacitor sufficiently far from the edges; the fringing field of a capacitor limits the approximation.^[ref]

An equipotential is a level set $\Phi =\text{constant}$. On a smooth equipotential with nonzero gradient, every tangent displacement has $d\Phi =\nabla \Phi \cdot d\mathbf{l}=0$, so the electric field is normal to the equipotential. Thus moving a test electric charge along an equipotential requires no net electrical work. Around a point charge, the equipotentials are spheres; the circles in the diagram are their sections, not an assumption of two-dimensional Coulomb's law. A uniform electric field has parallel plane equipotentials. For contours separated by the same small electric potential difference, smaller normal separation means a stronger electric field, approximately $|\mathbf{E}|\approx |\Delta \Phi |/\Delta n$. At a point where $\nabla \Phi =0$, the electric field is zero and has no direction to call normal.^[ref]

The superposition principle adds electric potentials as signed scalars. For finitely many stationary point charges $q_j$ at ${\mathbf{r}}_j$ in vacuum,For example, the electric dipole with $+q$ at $(a,0,0)$ and $-q$ at $(-a,0,0)$ has zero electric potential everywhere in the midplane $x=0$, yet its electric field at the midpoint is $\mathbf{E}=-(2kq/a^2)\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. With $q=2\mathrm{nC}$ and $a=0.10\mathrm{m}$, this is $-3596N/C\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. At $(2a,0,0)$, the same model gives $\Phi =2kq/(3a)\approx 119.867\mathrm{V}$ and $E_x=8kq/(9a^2)\approx 1598.222N/C$. Cancellation of electric potentials is quite different from cancellation of vector electric fields.

A motivating measurement is conductive-paper electric potential mapping. A documented teaching experiment uses slightly conductive paper on an insulating board, two circular electrodes in highly conducting ink, a steady supply, and a digital voltmeter. Connect the supply to the two electrodes, keep the voltmeter common lead on the negative electrode, and use its other lead as a movable probe. Adjust the supply using the measured electric potential difference between electrodes; the published procedure uses $10\mathrm{V}$. The observable is the voltmeter reading $\Phi (P)-\Phi (\mathrm{COM})$ at the probe position $P$. Locate several points reading $2\mathrm{V}$, record their positions on a separate map, and join them into an equipotential; repeat at other readings. Lift the probe between contacts so it does not damage the paper. This procedure makes the electrical reference potential concrete: every reading compares two contacts.^[ref]

From neighboring readings infer an electric field component by a finite difference, $E_x\approx -[\Phi (x+h)-\Phi (x)]/h$. Reconstruct two in-plane components with displacements along two independent directions. Alternatively, draw the electric field normal to mapped equipotentials, toward lower electric potential. The second diagram illustrates the same measurement principle with bar electrodes spanning a uniform sheet, insulating top and bottom edges, and a synthetic model $\Phi (x)=(50V/m)x$. The model readings $4.0\mathrm{V}$ at $x=0.08\mathrm{m}$ and $5.0\mathrm{V}$ at $x=0.10\mathrm{m}$ imply $E_x=-50V/m$. These values are calculated illustrations, not reported experimental data. The documented circular-electrode experiment similarly estimates the electric field from readings at successive centimetre marks.^[ref]

Useful controls include checking the voltmeter zero, checking that the electric potential difference along each painted electrode is negligible, and repeating reference readings to detect supply drift. Reversing the supply should reverse the signs relative to the same reference contact. Contact resistance, leakage electric currents, and touching the sheet can distort the map. A voltmeter has finite input electrical resistance and draws a small electric current; voltmeter loading changes the quantity being measured if that electrical resistance is insufficiently large relative to the sheet's effective source electrical resistance.^[ref][ref]

The paper carries a steady electric current, so this is a planar analogue rather than a direct measurement of isolated point charges in three-dimensional vacuum. For constant electrical conductivity, Ohm's law and steady charge conservation give $\mathbf{j}=-\sigma \nabla \Phi$ and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}=0$, hence the two-dimensional Laplace equation away from electrodes. Insulating sheet edges impose zero normal electric current, while finite electrodes fix boundary values. This derivation explains both the analogy and its limits: inhomogeneous paper, finite boundaries, and finite electrodes can change the contours. One should not fit the three-dimensional point charge formula $kQ/r$ to a planar map without testing that model. Small probe spacing resolves spatial variation better, but amplifies uncertainty in the inferred finite difference. The published laboratory instructions explicitly ask students to assess whether their proposed field fit is appropriate.^[ref][ref]

The scalar description has a crucial limit. Faraday's law of induction for a stationary closed path $\Gamma$ sayswhere ${\Phi }_B$ is magnetic flux. Nonzero changing magnetic flux gives nonzero circulation, incompatible with a single-valued electric potential alone. More generally, a scalar electric potential and a magnetic vector potential together giveConsequently, in the presence of induction, two voltmeter lead routes between the same contacts can produce different readings if the enclosed magnetic flux changes. This follows by subtracting the two path line integrals; it is a deduction from Faraday's law of induction, not a claimed outcome of the paper experiment. The steady setup and negligible induction justify interpreting its readings as electric potential differences. Merely introducing a scalar electric potential that depends on time cannot supply a nonzero curl of the electric field.^[ref]

A short mathematical justification connects the statements above. Along a smooth path, the chain rule gives $d\Phi =\nabla \Phi \cdot d\mathbf{l}$. Integrating and using $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \Phi$ yields the endpoint formula by the fundamental theorem for line integrals, proving path independence. Conversely, vanishing circulation around every closed path lets us define $\Phi (P)=-{\int }_{P_0}^P\mathbf{E}\cdot d\mathbf{l}$ independently of the route, with $\Phi (P_0)=0$. Zero curl is a local test; for a continuously differentiable curl-free vector field, a simply connected open region suffices for a global potential. The explicit finite-source formula already gives a global electric potential away from its source points.^[ref]

Conversion of mechanical motion into electrical output through changing magnetic flux.

For an exactly soluble example, set $L_1=L_2=L$, $R_1=R_2=R$, and $0<M<L$. Start with zero electric currents, and apply a constant electric potential difference $V_0>0$ at $t=0$. The sums $s=i_1+i_2$ and $d=i_1-i_2$ obey separate first-order linear differential equations:Their time constants are ${\tau }_{+}=(L+M)/R$ and ${\tau }_{-}=(L-M)/R$. Thus, for $t\ge 0$,Since ${\tau }_{-}<{\tau }_{+}$, $i_2(t)<0$ for $t>0$, but $i_2(t)\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$. The primary approaches $V_0/R$. The secondary response opposes the rise of linked magnetic flux, in accordance with Lenz's law. Removing mutual inductance by setting $M=0$ makes the two exponentials equal and gives zero secondary electric current.

For stipulated $L=0.1\mathrm{H}$, $M=0.06\mathrm{H}$, $R=10\Omega$ and $V_0=1\mathrm{V}$, the two time constants are $16\mathrm{ms}$ and $4\mathrm{ms}$. Setting ${\dot{i}}_2=0$ gives its largest negative magnitude atThe continuing primary electric current eventually reaches $100\mathrm{mA}$ while the secondary returns to zero. These numbers belong to the stated model, not the 1831 apparatus.

For azimuthal flow $u_{\varphi }=s({\Omega }_0+\omega s^2)$, a planar magnetic flux mode $s^{m}g(t)e^{im\varphi -im{\Omega }_{0}t-i{s}^{2}f(t)}$ obeys the resistive induction equation if $\dot{f}=m\omega -4i\eta f^2$ and $\dot{g}/g=-4i\eta (m+1)f$. With $f(0)=0$ and $g(0)=1$, their solution is $f=(m\omega /\mu )\tanh \mu t$ and $g=(\cosh \mu t{)}^{-(m+1)}$. Choose $\mathrm{Re}\mu >0$. For positive $\eta ,\omega$, the fixed-position field decays asymptotically at rate $(m+1)\sqrt{2\eta m\omega }$. Differential rotation creates small spatial scales, accelerating magnetic diffusion.

Michael Faraday's induction ring separates two questions: can one electrical circuit affect another without an electrical connection, and does that effect continue under steady conditions? The surviving apparatus uses insulated copper windings around an iron ring; the Royal Institution dates the successful experiment to 29 August 1831.^[ref]

Faraday connected one winding group to a battery, the other to a galvanometer. Making battery contact deflected the needle; maintaining contact let it return to rest; breaking contact reversed the response. Reversing the battery reversed the deflections. His separate cylinder comparison enhanced induction with iron, whereas replacing it with copper gave no enhancement over the windings alone.^[ref]

The contrast between a switching response and a quiet steady state makes mutual induction tangible. A steady primary electric current can maintain magnetic flux without sustaining a secondary electromotive force. Changes in magnetic flux linkage matter, as expressed by Faraday's law of induction. This is why a driven electrical transformer uses repeated changes in magnetic flux to supply secondary power.

The galvanometer readout of an induction pulse also separates the measured motion from the inferred electric current. Its moment of inertia and damping mean that a deflection is not an instantaneous trace of electric current. The following coupled RL induction model calculates currents in a stipulated circuit, rather than fitting Faraday's needle motion or reconstructing his switching times.

Faraday's law of induction relates a changing magnetic field to circulation of the electric field. For a fixed oriented surface $S$ with boundary $C=\partial S$, choose the positive direction around $C$ by the right-hand rule: the fingers follow $C$ while the thumb follows the chosen unit normal. The fixed-loop electromagnetic electromotive force isThe final derivative of magnetic flux is an ordinary time derivative, with the surface held fixed. Reversing both the unit normal and the boundary direction reverses both signs. The loop may be an imagined path: the field law does not require a wire or an electric current. ^[ref].

For a computed example, a fixed single-turn loop has area $A=0.020{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and out-of-page unit normal. Prescribe an external uniform magnetic field in that direction with $B(t)=0.10\mathrm{T}+(0.30T/s)t$ for $0\le t\le 1.0\mathrm{s}$. ThenIn a quasistatic resistive model with electrical resistance $R=2.0\Omega$, neglect the loop's self-inductance and its own contribution to changing magnetic flux. Ohm's law givesThe magnetic flux rises from $0.0020\mathrm{Wb}$ to $0.0080\mathrm{Wb}$ while the induced electromotive force stays constant: it measures the rate of change, rather than the amount of magnetic flux. The negative sign means clockwise electric current; its magnetic field through the loop points into the page, as explained by Lenz's law. The toy model describes the interval of steady ramping, excluding switching transients at its ends.

For a moving conducting loop $C(t)$, the electromagnetic electromotive force instead includes the Lorentz force contribution from the local velocity $\mathbf{v}$ of each conductor segment:This form assumes a thin-wire model with a well-defined closed contour and spanning oriented surface that move compatibly, a magnetic field satisfying Gauss's law for magnetism, and conductor speeds small compared with the speed of light. Ideal sliding contacts such as those in motional electromotive force can be treated piecewise. Arbitrary changes of electrical connections require checking the actual contour and conductor velocities; differentiating the flux through an arbitrary chosen moving path is insufficient. The velocity here describes conductor motion, not the charge carriers' drift along the wire. ^[ref].

A short derivation of the fixed-loop integral statement applies Stokes theorem to the local curl equation and differentiates under the fixed surface integral. For the moving loop, the magnetic flux transport for a moving circuit adds the swept-area term $-{\oint }_C(\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B})\cdot d\mathbf{l}$ to $d{\Phi }_B/dt$. Combining these two identities gives the moving-loop statement. This derives the integral forms from the local field law; it is not a proof of that empirical law from mathematics alone.

The useful unity is geometric: changing the magnetic field, the enclosed area, or the orientation can change magnetic flux and hence produce an electromotive force. A coil's multiple turns are accounted for by magnetic flux linkage, rather than by multiplying a single-turn flux without checking which flux each turn receives. ^[ref].

Faraday's report read on 24 November 1831 describes opposite momentary responses when a neighboring circuit is connected and disconnected, with no continuing response while its steady electric current is maintained. These are concrete experimental roots of the changing-flux idea. The report predates the modern Maxwell equations notation used above. ^[ref].

Ferromagnetism is collective magnetic order with spontaneous magnetization below a Curie temperature. Interactions favor aligned magnetic moments; the Ising model represents a two-orientation version with positive coupling.

A magnetic domain can possess spontaneous magnetization even when other domains cancel its contribution to the whole specimen. Compare this spatial cancellation between domains with antiferromagnetism, where opposing magnetic sublattices compensate within the ordered structure, and ferrimagnetism, where their contributions are generally unequal. The magnetic sublattice diagram makes the three local patterns explicit.

Smoothly sweeping an applied magnetic field can reveal abrupt magnetization changes through the Barkhausen effect. A pickup coil detects the resulting changes of magnetic flux, making collective magnetic domain wall motion accessible as an electrical signal.

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]

Flux expulsion is redistribution of magnetic flux out of the interiors of persistent circulating flows into their edges and surrounding regions. In two-dimensional incompressible flow, a magnetic flux function obeys ${\partial }_{t}A+\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla A=\eta {\nabla }^{2}A$. At large but finite magnetic Reynolds number, circulation stretches gradients of $A$, enabling resistive smoothing and weak interior magnetic field with strong field near the circulation boundary. Finite magnetic diffusivity is essential to the eventual rearrangement; exact ideal magnetic flux freezing alone does not justify a flux-free steady cell. Magnetic back reaction can limit the process.