Is London depth in superconductors analogous to skin depth?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that while the London penetration depth in superconductors and skin depth in conductors share similar mathematical formulations derived from Maxwell's equations, they are fundamentally different concepts. The skin depth arises from dissipative effects due to finite electrical conductivity, whereas the London penetration depth is associated with the effective photon mass in superconductors, explained by the Anderson-Higgs mechanism. Practically, they exhibit some similarities, but one cannot substitute penetration depth for skin depth in electromagnetic property calculations, particularly in type II superconductors where kinetic inductance plays a significant role.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Maxwell's equations
  • Familiarity with superconductivity concepts
  • Knowledge of the Anderson-Higgs mechanism
  • Basic principles of electromagnetic properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Anderson-Higgs mechanism in detail
  • Explore the Ginzburg–Landau theory of superconductivity
  • Study the differences between type I and type II superconductors
  • Learn about kinetic inductance and its implications in superconductors
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and researchers in superconductivity and electromagnetic theory will benefit from this discussion.

iVenky
Messages
212
Reaction score
12
London penetration depth that's defined for superconductors has a similar equation to skin depth in conductors derived from maxwell's equations. Are they equivalent?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Yes, from a practical point of view they are somewhat similar.
However, there are not "the same thing"; you can for example not replace the skin depth by the penetration depth when e.g. calculating EM properties.
The EM properties of superconductors at low frequencies (frequencies much lower than the energy of the gap) behave pretty much like perfect conductors from a EM point of view. The main difference (for type II superconductors) is actually presence of a fairly significant kinetic inductance, rather than the penetration depth.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K