A Penetration Depth of General Complex Conductivity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the skin depth expression for complex conductivity from Michael Tinkham's "Introduction to Superconductivity." The user struggles with the derivation, particularly in handling the displacement current and the complex nature of conductivity, leading to confusion over the generality of Tinkham's assertion. They find their derived expression close to Tinkham's but question its validity when assuming σ1 is much smaller than σ2. The conversation suggests that "general" may refer to the inclusion of both real and imaginary parts of conductivity, applicable primarily to good conductors. The complexity of Gaussian units is also noted as a potential source of confusion for those accustomed to SI units.
IDumb
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm working through chapter 2 of Michael Tinkham's Introduction to Superconductivity. On page 40, he asserts that the skin-depth for a general complex conductivity is (In Gaussian units)
$$\delta = \frac{c}{\sqrt{2\pi\omega\left(|\sigma| + \sigma_2\right)}}$$
where $$\sigma = \sigma_1 - i\sigma_2$$

I am trying to derive this skin-depth expression, but can't seem to get it. My process is as follows. I have bolded the two places where potential issues could be. Start with combining Faraday's law and Ampere's law:
$$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t}$$
$$ \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{4\pi}{c}\vec{J} + \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}\right)$$
Now use J = \sigma E and assume E = exp(i\omega t),
$$ \vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}) - \nabla^2\vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c}\left(\frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c}\vec{E} - \frac{\omega^2}{c}\vec{E}\right) $$

Now a potentially sketchy step, I assume the displacement current term is very small (I'm dealing with a superconductor here, so it makes sense), and I also assume the charge density is spatially uniform. This results in eliminating the first and fourth terms. I think this may be where I'm losing it, but I'm not sure how else to do it. The result is

$$\nabla^2\vec{E} = \frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c^2}\vec{E}$$

Solving this,

$$\vec{E} = \vec{E}_0\exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{i4\pi\sigma\omega}{c^2}}z\right)} $$

$$= \vec{E}_0 \exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{4\pi\omega(\sigma_2 + i\sigma_1)}{c^2}}z\right)}$$

I'm having trouble now. I try to separate this into real and imaginary parts, but the real part does not seem to be what Tinkham has. I think the way I'm taking the squareroot of a complex number is the problem.

$$= \vec{E}_0 \exp{\left(-\sqrt{\frac{4\pi\omega|\sigma|}{c^2}}\left(\cos{\theta/2} + i\sin{\theta/2}\right)\right)}$$
Where $$\theta = \arctan{\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}}$$

The resulting skin depth is
$$\delta = \frac{c}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega |\sigma |}}\frac{1}{\cos{\theta/2}}$$
This makes sense to me, is close to the given value, and reduces to the skin depth of a real conductivity for \sigma_2 = 0, as it should. My expression does reduce to Tinkham's if I assume \sigma_1 << \sigma_2, which is a very reasonable approximation. But the assertion in the book that this is a "genera" solution is what troubles me.

Does anyone have ideas on what I'm missing? I would really appreciate your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume \sigma_1 << \sigma_2, . . . the assertion in the book that this is a "genera" solution is what troubles me

Given the title of the book, does "general" solution simply mean it's true all superconductors (or even all reasonably good conductors)?
 
John Park said:
Given the title of the book, does "general" solution simply mean it's true all superconductors (or even all reasonably good conductors)?

I assume so. That's the justification for removing the displacement current term at least. He says a "General complex conductivity" though... Which contradicts that.
 
"General complex conductivity"

I still suspect it's semantic. As far as I can tell a real, frequency-dependent skin-depth implies a good conductor. How does Tinkham set up the problem?
 
I just looked at Tinkham's page 40 on the web; he says he's "solving the skin depth problem", as though it's an understood procedure, presumably with standard assumptions and approximations. And he's talking about good conductors the whole time; so I think "general" here simply means both real and imaginary parts of σ are included, but they're still limited to a good conductor.
 
Note: that formula from Tinkham is in Gaussian units, which might confuse (sane) people who only have worked in SI units. --M. A. Lindeman
 

Similar threads

Back
Top