Past exam of the physics B course of the University of Cambridge / 2016 / Paper 1 / Section B / B6

The method of images replaces induced charges or currents on a boundary by fictitious sources outside the physical region, chosen to satisfy that boundary's conditions. For example, a point charge $q$ a height $d$ above a grounded conducting plane has an image $-q$ at the reflected point. The sum has zero potential on the plane, and the electrostatic uniqueness theorem identifies it with the physical solution in the upper half-space. Images do not describe a second physical charge below the metal.

For the superconducting plane, use the different boundary condition $B_z=0$ at its surface: magnetic flux cannot enter the ideal bulk. Choose the real ring moment $\mathbf{m}=m\hat{z}$, where $m=I\pi R^2$, at $z=h$. Its image has moment $-m\hat{z}$ at $z=-h$. This superconducting plane image dipole makes the normal fields cancel at $z=0$, while their tangential fields add. The image is a computational continuation; the physical field inside the plane is zero. The original sketch shows the dipole-scale field, appropriate to $h\gg R$; the fine field close to the ring wire is outside that approximation.

In the vacuum region the magnetic scalar potential isAt the surface $z=0$, it reduces to $-mh/[2\pi ({\rho }^2+h^2{)}^{3/2}]$. Its tangential derivative therefore givesBoth $B_z$ and $B_{\varphi }$ vanish there; the sign is inward radially for the chosen positive moment. The expression is the leading dipole result, not an exact finite-ring formula at arbitrary $R/h$.

For the force, calculate the external image field on the axis near the real dipole:Differentiate this field with the image location held fixed, then evaluate at $z=h$. The dipole levitation force above a superconducting plane isdirected upward. Differentiating a substituted separation $2h$ while moving both dipoles in the force derivative would incorrectly double the result.

To levitate ring mass $M$, balance this force against $Mg$:A light, thin wire and the smallest practical gap reduce current. At fixed gap and wire cross-section $s$, $M=2\pi Rs{\rho }_w$ gives $I_{\mathrm{lev}}\propto h^2\sqrt{s{\rho }_w}/R^{3/2}$, favouring a larger ring until the dipole-limit constraint on $R/h$ matters. There is no unique least current without geometric and material constraints. As a geometrically consistent order-of-magnitude example, take $R=1\mathrm{mm}$, $h=10\mathrm{mm}$, wire radius $50\mu \mathrm{m}$ and an assumed metallic-scale density ${\rho }_w=6.0\times 10^3\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Then $M=2.96\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{kg}$ and $I_{\mathrm{lev}}\simeq 2.8\times 10^2\mathrm{A}$. The large value reflects the weak $h^{-4}$ force in the stipulated far-field geometry. Uniformly shrinking this geometrical example reduces current as size to the power $3/2$, but increases required electric current density; arbitrarily thin wire is therefore not a free optimization.

This balance estimate is not a verified superconducting design. The actual wire must carry that current without quenching, its self-field counts toward the limit, the plane must remain in its assumed flux-excluding state, and leads or supports add load. Transport critical-current measurements specify temperature, applied field and the voltage criterion rather than a material-independent limiting current.^[ref]