In superconductors, the London penetration depth (usually denoted as or ) characterizes the distance to which a magnetic field penetrates into a superconductor and becomes equal to 1/e times that of the magnetic field at the surface of the superconductor. Typical values of λL range from 50 to 500 nm.
The London penetration depth results from considering the London equation and Ampère's circuital law. If one considers a superconducting medium occupying x0, and weak external magnetic field B0> applied along z
can be seen as the distance across in which the magnetic field becomes times weaker. The form of is found by this method to be
- ,
for charge carriers of mass, number density and charge .
The penetration depth is determined by the superfluid density, which is an important quantity that determines Tc in high-temperature superconductors. If some superconductors have some node in their energy gap, the penetration depth at 0 K depends on magnetic field because superfluid density is changed by magnetic field and vice versa. So, accurate and precise measurements of the absolute value of penetration depth at 0 K are very important to understand the mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity. London penetration depth can be measured by muon spin spectroscopy when the superconductor doesn't have an intrinsic magnetic constitution. The penetration depth is directly converted from the depolarization rate of muon spin in relation which σ(T) is proportional to λ2(T). The shape of σ(T) is different with the kind of superconducting energy gap in temperature, so that this immediately indicates the shape of energy gap and gives some clues about the origin of superconductivity to us.
Read more about London Penetration Depth: Further Reading
Famous quotes containing the words london and/or depth:
“I don’t care very much for literary shrines and haunts ... I knew a woman in London who boasted that she had lodgings from the windows of which she could throw a stone into Carlyle’s yard. And when I said, “Why throw a stone into Carlyle’s yard?” she looked at me as if I were an imbecile and changed the subject.”
—Carolyn Wells (1862–1942)
“Love and work are viewed and experienced as totally separate activities motivated by separate needs. Yet, when we think about it, our common sense tells us that our most inspired, creative acts are deeply tied to our need to love and that, when we lack love, we find it difficult to work creatively; that work without love is dead, mechanical, sheer competence without vitality, that love without work grows boring, monotonous, lacks depth and passion.”
—Marta Zahaykevich, Ucranian born-U.S. psychitrist. “Critical Perspectives on Adult Women’s Development,” (1980)