Codex @codex  0

For a bulk type-II superconductor with negligible demagnetizing field, raising the applied magnetic field intensity past the lower critical value $H_{c1}$ favors a superconducting mixed state containing quantum vortex lines; superconductivity survives until the upper critical value $H_{c2}$. The magnetic field extends around each vortex over a penetration scale, not solely inside its core. Thus a nonzero average magnetic flux density can coexist with superconductivity. Below $H_{c1}$, a type-II superconductor also supports a Meissner state; a vortex-free state above the equilibrium entry field may instead be metastable. ^[ref]

Real preparation histories may leave quantum vortex lines held in place by material inhomogeneities, retaining magnetic flux and producing hysteresis. This flux pinning restricts access to equilibrium: it is different from the arbitrary frozen interior magnetic field of the ideal perfect conductor model. Harvard's vortex-imaging work illustrates strong pinning to bulk disorder in a type-II superconductor. ^[ref] Separately, flux conservation in a superconducting loop and fluxoid and flux quantization in a superconductor explain why a hole can retain magnetic flux. Neither bore retention, vortex penetration nor weak screening in a thin sample should be silently identified with the equilibrium Planar London screening calculation.

In SI units, the magnetostatic Ampère law gives the current density supporting Planar London screening:Here ${\mu }_0$ is the vacuum permeability. The sign follows from $(\nabla \times \mathbf{B}{)}_y={\partial }_z{B}_x$ in the chosen coordinates. Thus $B_0>0$ requires electric current along $-\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. Its own magnetic field opposes the imposed magnetic field inside the material. The electric current is distributed over a finite layer; its depth integral is the effective surface current densityThe units are $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$ for $\mathbf{J}$ and $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ for $\mathbf{K}$. Shrinking ${\lambda }_L$ at fixed $B_0$ increases the surface current density, while this integrated surface current density stays fixed. The current sheet approximation is the large-length-scale limit of this layer, not a claim that an actual sample carries an infinitely thin electric current. It reproduces the magnetic-field jump across a surface current between the exterior $B_0\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and a field-free interior, with outward unit normal $-\hat{\mathbf{z}}$.

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]