Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Some metals have the remarkable property that their electrical resistivity ρ
vanishes below a critical temperature Tc . Understanding this phenomenon
has been one of the main goals of solid state physics since its origins in the
beginning of the 20th century. Superconductivity is now well understood
for elemental metals and intermetallics; an entirely successful microscopic
theory (the BCS theory) has been worked out for these systems. The more
recently discovered ”high temperature superconductors” (”high” T c >77K)
are still mysterious on this level, however.
In this section, I would like to cover only those aspects of supercon-
ductivity which follow from the observation of the phenomenon, not saying
anything about its microscopic origin. Two key experimental characteristics
of superconductors, the absence of resitivity ρ, and the perfect diamagnetism
χm = −1, have some interesting implications. If we use only classical E&M
theories combined with thermodynamics, two experimentally observed char-
acteristics follow: the existence of a penetration depth for magnetic fields,
and the existence of a critical magnetic field above which superconductivity
disappears.
Superconductivity is not a tremendously useful materials property–not
yet. Visions of superconductor-enabled technologies, such as magnetically
levitated trains, or lossless power transmission, have not yet materialized in
any real sense. Niche applications exist, such as construction of supercon-
ducting magnets and use in very high quality cellular telephone base station
filters. For the most part, however, I am including a discussion of supercon-
ductivity since it has always been an active area in the study of solid state
phenomena and is likely to remain so.
E = ρJ (1)
1
where J is the current density. For a perfect conductor, ρ = 0, so we
have
E = 0 (2)
∇×E = 0 (3)
∂B
∇×E = (4)
∂t
∂B
= 0 (5)
∂t
which implies that the magnetic field inside a perfect conductor never
changes:
B = Bo (6)
We have already learned something: the magnetic field inside a perfect
conductor must always be the same as it was at the time the perfectly
conducting state was set up.
2
perfect conductor superconductor
(hypothetical) (observed)
H=0
T >Tc key:
Step #1
normal
Step #2 super-
conductor
outcome
H=0
3
If instead, for a perfect conductor, we reverse the order of applying the
fields and cooling, so that we apply the field first and then cool, we must
always have Bo = µo Happ inside the sample. This was the field present
at the birth of the superconducting state. Removing the field then means
that B = Bo = µo M , and we would measure a demagnetizing field from
the sample, as pictured. Perfect conductors would thus exhibit hysteresis in
the transition to the superconducting state: the final state depends on the
sample history.
For superconductors as they exist in nature, there is no hysteresis. All
experimental facts are the same except in the sequence b). Here, it turns out
that when cooling the material through TC in the presence of a magnetic
field, the field is expelled from the SC! We have B = 0 satisfied if M = −H.
This is the expression for perfect diamagnetism. Recalling the definition of
χM , we thus have.
B = 0 (7)
M = −H (8)
χM = −1 (9)
4
Jn = nevn (10)
= σn E (11)
∂v
me = eE (12)
∂t
We can write for the flux:
J s = n s e vs (13)
∂Js ∂vs
= ns e (14)
∂t ∂t
and substituting in from 12
∂Js n s e2 E
= (15)
∂t me
This is the first London equation. In itself, it is not useful, but it brings
us to the second London equation.
If we take the curl of the above, we have:
∂Js n s e2
∇× = ∇×E (16)
∂t me
ns e2 ∂B
= − (17)
me ∂t
or, rewriting:
n s e2
∂
∇ × Js + B =0 (18)
∂t me
So the quantity in brackets needs to be a constant. To be consistent
with the Meissner effect, however, B = 0, and the whole term in brackets is
set to zero:
n s e2
∇ × Js = − B (19)
me
5
This is the second London equation.
To go further, we can assume that in the superconducting state, the
normal contribution to the total current Jn , J = Js + Jn is negligible.
Rewriting the third Maxwell’s equation:
∇ × B = µo J (20)
∇ × (∇ × B) = µo (∇ × Js ) (21)
µo n s e2
= − B (22)
me
Introducing
1 µo n s e2
2 ≡ (23)
λL me
we rewrite as
1
∇ × (∇ × B) = − B (24)
λ2L
and, revisiting our vector calculus identity, ∇ × ∇ × v = ∇(∇ · v) − ∇2 v,
through the fact that ∇ · B = 0, we simplify the LHS as
1
∇2 B = B (25)
λ2
Similarly, from the second London equation, we have
n s e2
∇ × (∇ × Js ) = − ∇×B (26)
me
µo n s e2
= − Js (27)
me
1
∇ × (∇ × Js ) = − 2 Js (28)
λL
1
∇2 J s = Js (29)
λ2
λL is the London penetration depth. Checking units, we have
6
me
r
λL = (30)
µo n s e2
s
kg
[=] N
(31)
A2
m−3 C 2
r
kg m3
= 2
(32)
sN s
kg m 1 2
= m (33)
s2 N
= m (34)
Let’s consider how these equations work out for a magnetic field applied
parallel to the surface of a superconductor. We’ll have B = Bo x̂, and the
distance into the superconductor measured in the z direction. The london
equations can be simplified in one dimension (z) as:
1
∇2 B = B (35)
λ2
∂ 2 Bx (z) 1
= Bx (z) (36)
∂z 2 λ2L
B0x −z/λL
Jsy (z) = − e (39)
µo λL
Thus the magnetic field can penetrate the superconductor to a charac-
teristic depth given by λL , typically 500Å in conventional superconductors
such as Pb and Sn. The surface supercurrent Js acts to screen the rest of
the sample from this applied field.