Codex @codex  0

The regular hexagon has area $A=6(\sqrt{3}{a}^2/4)=3\sqrt{3}{a}^2/2$. Choose $t=0$ with its positive normal parallel to the imposed field. The external magnetic flux is $\Phi =B_{0}A\cos \omega t$, so Faraday's law of induction givesTaking the stated resistance to determine the loop response,A different initial orientation adds a phase. The sign is with respect to the chosen loop orientation and obeys Lenz's law; reversal of that orientation reverses the signed current. This expression neglects self-inductance, as in the resistive-loop model.

Write the condensate order parameter as $\Psi =|\Psi |e^{i\theta }$. Away from vortex cores, single-valuedness around a closed loop gives $\oint \nabla \theta \cdot d\mathbf{l}=2\pi n$. For neutral condensed objects of mass $M$, ${\mathbf{v}}_s=\hslash \nabla \theta /M$, hence the quantized circulationHere $M$ is the atomic mass for a simple bosonic atomic condensate, or the pair mass for a paired-fermion condensate. A nonzero winding can surround a vortex core where the order-parameter amplitude falls to zero. The result concerns collective condensate phase winding, not separate orbit quantization of every constituent particle.

For charge $q$ per condensed object, the gauge-invariant relation is $M{\mathbf{v}}_s=\hslash \nabla \theta -q\mathbf{A}$. Integrating givesThis is fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor. With Cooper-pair charge magnitude $2e$, the flux quantum's magnitude isThe orientation fixes its sign. A loop taken deep in a thick superconductor has negligible superflow and therefore encloses an integer flux quantum. In a thin loop or one with appreciable screening current, it is the fluxoid, including the circulation term, that is quantized; the magnetic flux alone need not be exactly an integer multiple.

Use a complex pair order parameter $\Psi =|\Psi |e^{i\theta }$ with signed charge $q$, $|q|=2e$. A local isotropic Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity has free energyFor $\alpha <0$, $\beta >0$, the uniform amplitude is $|{\Psi }_0{|}^2=-\alpha /\beta$. Variation gives the static field equation and supercurrentThe vector potential obeys Maxwell's equations, including $\nabla \times \mathbf{B}={\mu }_0({\mathbf{j}}_s+{\mathbf{j}}_n)+{\mu }_0{ϵ}_0{\partial }_t\mathbf{E}$ and $\nabla \times \mathbf{E}=-{\partial }_t\mathbf{B}$, with $\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi -{\partial }_t\mathbf{A}$. The static approximation drops the displacement current. A common dissipative near-transition dynamical extension is the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equationIt is a phenomenological relaxation law in its applicable regime, not a universal microscopic Schrödinger equation for every superconductor. Its covariant time derivative and the covariant spatial derivative ensure consistent phase and electromagnetic gauge transformations.

The amplitude and screening lengths areFor $\kappa >1/\sqrt{2}$ the ideal model is type II. An Abrikosov vortex has a $2\pi n$ phase winding, a core with suppressed $|\Psi |$ of size $\xi$, and circulating screening currents over $\lambda$. Single-valuedness implies fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor:The sign of $n$ depends on the chosen circulation and charge convention. Far from the core, where the contour current term is negligible, each singly wound vortex carries one flux quantum in magnitude.

The equilibrium lower critical magnetic field marks favorable entry of the first vortex; for $\kappa \gg 1$, ${\mu }_0{H}_{c1}\simeq [{\Phi }_0/(4\pi {\lambda }^2)](\ln \kappa +C)$ with an order-one core correction $C$. The upper critical magnetic field follows by linearizing the order-parameter equation in the field:Between these fields lies the superconducting mixed state, often with an Abrikosov vortex lattice. The ideal equilibrium entry and exit fields need not yield large irreversible loops. Flux pinning and surface barriers impede vortex motion; field sweeps then retain history-dependent flux and produce magnetic hysteresis and dissipative losses.

A superconducting weak link, such as a tunnel junction or narrow constriction, couples the phases of two superconductors. With consistent choices of phase and voltage orientation, the Josephson effect givesThe Gauge-invariant Josephson phase includes the line integral of $\mathbf{A}$ across the link. A zero voltage can sustain a phase-dependent steady current; a constant nonzero voltage makes that contribution oscillate. Microwave irradiation can lock this oscillation to an applied frequency, giving voltage steps at $V_n=nhf/(2e)$, an experimental test of coherent pair transport rather than an ordinary resistive current law.

A DC SQUID places two weak links in a loop. For identical junction critical currents $I_0$ and negligible self-inductance, flux quantization fixes their relative phase difference to $2\pi {\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}/{\Phi }_0$. Adding the two sinusoidal currents and maximizing over their common phase givesThe flux-periodic response provides sensitive magnetic measurements. Junction asymmetry or appreciable loop inductance changes the ideal contrast and can introduce additional hysteresis; the phase-coherent interference principle remains. The Jaklevic Josephson interference experiment is a motivating experimental realization of this link between a superconducting loop, weak links and magnetic flux.

For a one-component superfluid with nonzero order-parameter magnitude on a closed loop, the phase defines a map from the loop into the circle. Its winding number isThe fundamental group ${\pi }_1(S^1)=\mathbb{Z}$ means that smooth deformations preserving nonzero amplitude cannot change this integer. With superfluid velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_s=\hslash \nabla \theta /m_B$, it gives quantized circulation $\oint {\mathbf{v}}_s\cdot d\mathbf{l}=nh/m_B$. A vortex core permits the order parameter to vanish and carries the winding; a superfluid phase slip changes a loop's winding when a core crosses it. For paired neutral fermions, the relevant condensed-object mass is the pair mass.

For charged pairs, gauge-covariant phase rigidity gives fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor:The magnitude of the pair flux quantum is $h/(2e)$. Magnetic flux alone approaches an integer multiple of this value when the circulating-velocity term on a bulk contour is negligible. The topological condition is not a claim that an arbitrary finite loop has exactly quantized magnetic flux independent of its screening current.

There are also momentum-space invariants, distinct from real-space vortex winding. A fully gapped two-dimensional Bogoliubov--de Gennes Hamiltonian can have a Chern number obtained from its occupied quasiparticle bands' Berry curvature. In a chiral paired model it can protect edge modes while the bulk gap and relevant symmetry class are maintained. Such an invariant can change only when those assumptions fail, for example through a bulk gap closing. A nodal d-wave state requires a different analysis; it is not automatically a fully gapped Chern superconductor.

A SQUID converts magnetic flux into a periodic interference response of superconducting weak links. A DC SQUID has two Josephson junctions in a loop. For equal junction critical currents $I_0$ and negligible loop self-inductance, their Gauge-invariant Josephson phases differ by $2\pi \Phi /{\Phi }_0$, with ${\Phi }_0=h/(2e)$. Adding $I_0\sin {\delta }_1+I_0\sin {\delta }_2$ and maximizing over the common phase givesThus the critical current repeats for every added flux quantum. A suitable current bias and dissipative junction dynamics convert the changing critical current into an observable voltage modulation. Junction asymmetry prevents exact zero minima, and appreciable self-inductance makes the flux include the circulating current's contribution; these require a modified response model. The Jaklevic Josephson interference experiment supplies an early experimental realization of the interference principle.

An RF SQUID instead uses one junction in a loop inductively coupled to a radio-frequency resonator. In either design, a pickup coil and flux transformer can couple a small external field into the sensor, and flux feedback can keep it near a sensitive operating point over a larger measurement range. Applications include weak-field magnetometry, measurements of magnetic susceptibility and persistent currents, geophysical surveys and precision low-current detection. Gradiometers suppress common external fields, while thermal, junction and environmental noise set practical sensitivity. The instrument measures a flux-dependent electrical response; sensitivity is not established solely by the small size of ${\Phi }_0$.

For a neutral condensate with order parameter $\psi =\sqrt{n_s}{e}^{i\varphi }$, the superfluid velocity away from singularities is ${\mathbf{v}}_s=\hslash \nabla \varphi /m$. Single-valuedness around a closed contour gives $\oint \nabla \varphi \cdot d\mathbf{l}=2\pi n$, hence quantization of circulation:The mass is that of the condensed object: an atom for a bosonic atomic superfluid, or a pair for a paired-fermion condensate. A nonzero winding cannot be continuously removed while the order parameter remains nonzero throughout a spanning region. A vortex allows its phase to wind while its amplitude vanishes in a core.

For a charged condensate, minimal coupling gives $m{\mathbf{v}}_s+q\mathbf{A}=\hslash \nabla \varphi$. ThusUsing ${\mathbf{j}}_s=n_{s}q{\mathbf{v}}_s$ and ${\lambda }_L^2=m/({\mu }_0{n}_s{q}^2)$ gives the fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor relation $\Phi +{\mu }_0{\lambda }_L^2\oint {\mathbf{j}}_s\cdot d\mathbf{l}=nh/q$. The signs of oriented flux and winding depend on the signed pair charge; the magnitude of the elementary superconducting flux quantum is ${\Phi }_0=h/(2e)$. Flux alone is quantized when the current term is negligible on a contour deep in the bulk. A thin ring or a contour near a core can instead require the full fluxoid.

In a neutral superfluid, vortex flow carries kinetic energy and angular momentum. Rotation can favor vortices because equilibrium minimizes the rotating-frame quantity $E-\mathbf{\Omega }\cdot \mathbf{L}$. The core size is set by a coherence or healing scale. In a type-II superconductor, an Abrikosov vortex carries quantized magnetic flux and circulating supercurrent; its core scale is the coherence length and its magnetic screening scale is the penetration depth. Between the lower and upper critical fields, a vortex lattice can be favored. Flux pinning affects how that structure responds to current. Type-I bulk superconductors instead favor macroscopic normal/superconducting separation rather than the usual stable dilute Abrikosov-vortex regime.

Time-translation symmetry conserves the energy $H$, and axial rotational symmetry makes $\varphi$ a cyclic coordinate, conservingThe radial Euler-Lagrange equation before elimination isInsert $\dot{\varphi }=J/(m{r}^2)-qB/(2m)$. The cross terms linear in $JqB$ cancel, leavingEquivalently use the reduced radial potentialThe last term is constant at fixed $J$ and has no radial derivative, but is part of the full conserved energy. Conservation of $J$ is stated in the rotationally symmetric gauge; the conserved mechanical combination can be written in terms of magnetic flux in a gauge-independent way.

The persistent current in a superconducting loop experiment prepares a closed cold path, changes the externally linked magnetic flux, and follows the resulting superconducting persistent current through its magnetic field. The essential measurement starts after the inducing magnetic field has stopped changing.

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes's 1914 Communication 140c describes a lead coil closed by fused lead connections. Cooling in a magnetic field and removing the inducing magnet prepared the circulation. A magnetic compass sensed it without contacts; a separate copper coil, cooled in liquid air, supplied a measured balancing magnetic field. Reversing orientation and compensation reduced offsets. ^[ref]

The liquid-helium cryostat maintained low temperature, but refilling temporarily warmed the apparatus and changed the inferred electric current. A later run used a smaller initial electric current. Apparatus deformation and needle-zero drift limited comparison; cutting the closure still left a smaller magnetic signal, warning against assigning every signal to circulation around the whole loop. The report consequently gave an upper bound under a residual Ohm's law hypothesis. ^[ref]

For interpreting such a measurement, write a locally calibrated magnetic signal asHere $k$ is the coupling and gain, while $b$ contains the background magnetic field and readout offset. Only after establishing stable $k$ and correcting $b$ does a ratio of signals determine a ratio of electric currents. A gradual change in geometry, a drifting background magnetic field, or a change of temperature can imitate or conceal a decay. A pickup coil connected only to a voltage meter obeys Faraday's law of induction and detects a changing linked magnetic flux; its zero steady output cannot demonstrate that the underlying static magnetic field has disappeared. A magnetic compass can respond to that static magnetic field.

Opening the path, reversing the preparation, and repeating with smaller initial electric current are useful controls for separating whole-loop circulation, magnetic background and a superconducting critical current. Keep the temperature and external magnetic field stable during the interval used to infer electrical resistance. A sudden reduction near a superconducting critical current is not evidence for the constant-$R$ exponential decay model at smaller electric current. Persistence also does not replace the Field-cooled Meissner experiment: transport around a hole and magnetic expulsion from the material test different properties.

A superconducting persistent current is an electric current circulating in a closed path with superconductivity after the external driving electromotive force has ceased. Its associated magnetic field makes the circulation observable without inserting a measuring instrument into the path. This article concerns macroscopic circulation in superconductivity. A finite experiment establishes persistence over its observation window with a stated measurement error, rather than directly observing an infinite lifetime.

The ideal circuit connection is flux conservation in a superconducting loop. In a fixed loop with self-inductance $L$, a single circulating electric current $I$, and externally imposed linked magnetic flux ${\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}$, the lumped circuit approximation givesWhen the electrical resistance $R$ vanishes, integrating gives $LI+{\Phi }_{\mathrm{ext}}=\text{constant}$. Removing the external linked magnetic flux therefore changes the circulating electric current; holding it fixed afterwards preserves that electric current. This is a circuit approximation with a specified self-inductance, not a derivation of the microscopic state of superconductivity. For thin paths where the carrier contribution matters, fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor supplies the more careful description.

For constant $L>0$, constant effective electrical resistance $R\ge 0$, and no changing external linked magnetic flux, the RL circuit instead predictsThis exponential decay follows by separating $dI/I=-(R/L)dt$. A long relaxation time tests extremely small electrical resistance without trying to resolve an equally tiny steady electric potential difference. The stored magnetic energy is $U=L{I}^2/2$, so the same model gives $dU/dt=-R{I}^2$, exactly the Joule heating loss. The finite energy stored in the loop supplies the magnetic readout; the circulating electric current is not a continuously powered source of useful work.

A pickup coil links magnetic flux from a source and develops an electromotive force when that linked magnetic flux changes.

Magnetic flux freezing in a highly conducting solar wind can carry open magnetic field lines outward. A nearly radial flux tube occupying fixed solid angle has area proportional to $r^2$, so constant magnetic flux gives $B_r\propto r^{-2}$. If a field is approximately dipolar inside an opening radius $r_o$ and radial beyond it, its radial component at $r\gg r_o$ is enhanced by order $r/r_o$ compared with continued dipolar $r^{-3}$ decay. Opposite polarities preserve zero net flux through a closed surface; this approximation does not introduce a magnetic monopole.

The reflected impedance is the contribution of a coupled secondary load to a primary winding's input impedance. For two ideal mutually coupled inductors, choose winding signs so that positive electric currents reinforce their magnetic fluxes. If the secondary loop has complex impedance $Z_s$, its Kirchhoff's voltage law gives ${\tilde{I}}_s=-i\omega M{\tilde{I}}_p/Z_s$. Substitution in ${\tilde{V}}_p=i\omega L_p{\tilde{I}}_p+i\omega M{\tilde{I}}_s$ gives $Z_{\mathrm{in}}=i\omega L_p+{\omega }^2{M}^2/Z_s$. For $Z_s=R+i\omega L_s$, the reflected real part is ${\omega }^2{M}^{2}R/[R^2+(\omega L_s{)}^2]$, and primary mean input power equals secondary mean Joule heating.

Suppose a calibrated measurement bounds the fractional loss of a nonzero superconducting persistent current by $ϵ$, with $0<ϵ<1$, over a duration $T>0$. Take $I_0>0$ by choosing the circulation direction. Under the constant-$L$, constant-$R$, undriven RL circuit model,The inequality follows because the logarithm is increasing. The final approximation requires $ϵ\ll 1$ and slightly understates the exact upper bound. If $L$ is uncertain, an independently established upper bound on $L$ gives the conservative electrical resistance bound. The uncertainty in the initial reading, the final reading, background subtraction and drift must all be included in $ϵ$; a display resolution alone does not provide it.

For an original illustrative example, let $L=1\mu \mathrm{H}$ and suppose the corrected electric current ratio after $T=3\mathrm{h}=10800\mathrm{s}$ is at least $0.999$. ThenThese are conditional bounds for stipulated parameters, not values attributed to the 1914 apparatus. With the same $L$ but $R=10^{-11}\Omega$, the model instead gives $\tau =10^5\mathrm{s}$ and $I(24\mathrm{h})/I_0=e^{-0.864}\simeq 0.42147$: a readily visible loss on the chosen scale.

A resolved decay can be checked using its logarithm:A straight line supports this constant-parameter model; curvature or jumps demand a different account. If an effective electrical resistance varies with time while $L$ remains fixed and the loop remains undriven, only its time average is constrained:This does not bound every instantaneous value of $R(t)$. Changing self-inductance or external linked magnetic flux adds terms to the circuit equation, so an uncorrected magnetic signal cannot simply be substituted for $I(t)$. Nonobservation of decay leaves arbitrarily small positive constant electrical resistance compatible with a finite observation: it is not a logical proof that $R=0$.

A rectangular loop entering a uniform magnetic field while only one horizontal segment is immersed has motional electromotive force $Bav$. Neglecting self-inductance, its electric current is $Bav/R$ and its upward magnetic force is $(Ba{)}^{2}v/R$. The equation $m\dot{v}=mg-(Ba{)}^{2}v/R$ gives exponential relaxation toward $mgR/(Ba{)}^2$. This entry model ends when both horizontal segments enter the field; then their net magnetic force and the rate of change of external magnetic flux vanish.

Self-inductance is inductance associated with a coil's own electric current, rather than magnetic flux supplied by another coil. In the linear model, fixed geometry and magnetic response give constant $L$ in $\Lambda =LI$. With the turn orientations defined in magnetic flux linkage, Faraday's law of induction gives the self-induced electromotive forceThe final equality requires constant $L$; if the geometry changes, use $-d\Lambda /dt$. The minus sign expresses Lenz's law: the induced electromotive force opposes the change in electric current. It does not always oppose the electric current itself. When positive electric current decreases, the induced electromotive force acts in its direction. ^[ref].

For terminal sign bookkeeping, label the ideal inductor's terminals $a,b$, choose positive electric current entering $a$ and leaving $b$, and define $v_L$ as the terminal electric potential difference drop from $a$ to $b$ in the lumped electrical circuit model. This passive convention givesThus a coil with self-inductance $0.5\mathrm{H}$ and increasing electric current $dI/dt=12A/s$ has terminal drop $v_L=6\mathrm{V}$ and induced electromotive force ${\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{ind}}=-6\mathrm{V}$. These signs describe the same process with different reference conventions. The RL circuit uses the terminal-drop convention throughout.

A finite terminal electric potential difference cannot make the electric current of an ideal inductor with constant $L>0$ jump. Integrating its differential equation givesIf $v_L$ stays bounded, the integral tends to zero as the interval shrinks, ensuring continuity of electric current. A step in terminal electric potential difference changes $dI/dt$ immediately, while electric current remains continuous. At constant electric current, the self-induced electromotive force is zero, although the inductor's magnetic energy can remain nonzero.

For magnetic concentration by an incompressible stagnation flow, one possible normalization gives $(g^2{)}^{\prime }=2\eta -2\omega g^2$, $f^{\prime }/f=2\omega -\lambda \eta /g^2$, and $b^{\prime \prime }+(q^{-1}+q)b^{\prime }+(\lambda -m^2/q^2)b=0$. The mode parameter $\lambda$ is not fixed by decay at infinity alone. The regular axisymmetric Gaussian has $\lambda =2$, $b=e^{-q^2/2}$ and conserved axial magnetic flux, with energy proportional to $g^{-2}$. The radial equation also has regular algebraic-tail solutions.

In 1986, Akira Tonomura and collaborators coated a ferromagnet shaped as a torus with superconducting niobium and copper. A cooled stage held it in a 150 kV field-emission electron microscope. An electron biprism overlapped object and reference waves; film holograms were reconstructed optically. Room-temperature leakage screening selected samples; varying copper thickness tested electron penetration.^[ref]

Below the superconducting transition, through-hole and outside electron waves differed in wave phase by zero or $\pi$ modulo $2\pi$. Warming through it changed the interference reversibly. Leakage and coherent-penetration bounds do not prove zero magnetic field.^[ref]

Why these two phases? The shield's superconducting flux quantum is $h/(2e)$, whereas the probing electron has electric charge $-e$. Substituting $\Phi =Nh/(2e)$ givesAn odd $N$ therefore moves a carrier fringe by half its spacing; an even $N$ leaves it unchanged modulo a full spacing. The phase quantization provides an internal check on the superconducting enclosure. It does not mean that zero wave phase proves zero trapped magnetic flux.^[ref]

The readout is electron holography in the off-axis holography geometry: a known tilted reference converts an unknown relative wave phase into a spatial carrier displacement. Reconstructing a magnetic wave phase assumes stable reference phase, adequate coherence and a calibrated carrier; electrostatic charging and material traversal can also shift wave phase. Optical wave phase amplification rescales the displayed fringe displacement. The experiment's shielding and comparison tests support the magnetic inference; an interferogram by itself measures the total relative wave phase, rather than separately certifying every contribution. The ideal field-free model describes the limiting geometry, while finite leakage and penetration remain questions of experimental bounds.

A solar granule is a photospheric convection cell, with relatively hot rising material in its interior and cooler descending material near its edges. The pattern formed by their bright interiors and darker edges is solar granulation. Their evolving horizontal outflows can sweep weak magnetic flux toward surrounding lanes.

A solenoid is a coil of electrical conductor, usually wire wound into a helix around a circular cylinder. The same electric current $I$ flows through its successive turns. Each turn contributes a magnetic field; the superposition principle makes their axial contributions reinforce inside the coil. Curl the fingers of your right hand in the direction of the electric current around the turns: the thumb gives the interior magnetic field direction by the right-hand rule. Throughout this branch, $N$ is the total number of turns, $\ell$ is the coil length, and $n=N/\ell$ is the solenoid turn density. ^[ref].

The attraction of a long solenoid is a controllable, nearly uniform magnetic field over an interior working region: change the electric current to tune its strength, or reverse the electric current to reverse its direction. This makes it a useful setting for studying the Lorentz force, measuring magnetic flux, and constructing an inductor. Its geometry turns the many contributions from individual turns into the simple long-solenoid approximation. A real finite coil has end fields and leakage; its exterior magnetic field is not zero. The on-axis magnetic field of a finite solenoid below quantifies that difference.

Historically, the coil helped connect magnetic fields to electric currents. In his memoir on the mathematical theory of electrodynamic phenomena, Ampère modeled the interactions of magnets using the ends of solenoids in place of microscopic magnetic constituents. This was a route toward explaining magnetism by electric currents, rather than a modern microscopic account of magnetization. ^[ref]. The historical setting is documented by the ^[ref].

For a long vacuum-core or air-core solenoid with fixed geometry and linear magnetic response, neglecting end effects gives self-inductanceHere $N$ is the total number of turns, $n=N/\ell$ is the solenoid turn density, and $A$ is the interior cross-sectional area. The reason for the square of $N$ is physical: more turns produce more magnetic field, and more turns link the resulting magnetic flux. Approximately equal magnetic flux $\Phi \approx BA$ through each turn gives magnetic flux linkage $\Lambda \approx N\Phi \approx {\mu }_0{N}^{2}AI/\ell$; division by the electric current yields $L$. ^[ref].

For the same $N=1000$, $\ell =0.50\mathrm{m}$, and $a=0.025\mathrm{m}$, the area is $A=\pi (0.025{)}^2{\mathrm{m}}^2\approx 1.9635\times 10^{-3}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The long-coil estimate isAt $I=0.50\mathrm{A}$, each turn links approximately $2.4674\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{Wb}$ and the total magnetic flux linkage is approximately $2.4674\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{Wb}$. Their ratio to $I$ is the stated self-inductance. A real finite coil need not give precisely these values: the axial centre correction above is not by itself a correction formula for inductance, which depends on magnetic flux across all the turns.

At fixed $A$ and $\ell$, doubling $N$ quadruples $L$. At fixed solenoid turn density $n$ and area $A$, doubling $\ell$ doubles both $N$ and $L$. These are different changes to the geometry, so there is no contradiction between $L\propto 1/\ell$ at fixed $N$ and $L\propto \ell$ at fixed $n$. A magnetic core requires its own magnetic permeability model; nonlinear magnetization can make a constant-$L$ description inadequate.