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.

Assume a triangular array of straight, singly quantized Abrikosov vortices with nearest-neighbor distance $a$. Here $\overline{B}>0$ is the magnitude of the spatially averaged internal magnetic field, and ${\Phi }_0=h/(2e)$ is the superconducting flux quantum; $e>0$ is the elementary charge. Two lattice vectors of length $a$ meeting at $60^{\circ }$ span area $A_c=\sqrt{3}{a}^2/2$. One flux quantum per cell givesThus multiplying $\overline{B}$ by five decreases $a$ by $\sqrt{5}$; it does not multiply the flux of each vortex by five. Using the exact SI Planck constant and elementary charge, ${\Phi }_0\simeq 2.06783\times 10^{-15}\mathrm{Wb}$.^[ref]

For chosen internal fields $0.20\mathrm{T}$ and $1.0\mathrm{T}$, the spacings are approximately $109\mathrm{nm}$ and $48.9\mathrm{nm}$. These are geometric model calculations, not measurements from a particular sample. The local magnetic field varies within a cell; replacing $\overline{B}$ by the field at a core would not give this counting relation.

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.