Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Volume 3, Section 21-5 of the Feynman lectures (superconductivity), Feynman makes a step that I can't quite follow. To start, he writes the wavefunction of the ground state in the following form (21.17):

$\psi(r)=\rho(r)e^{i\theta(r)}$

If the density $\rho^2$ is approximated to be constant throughout a superconducting block, then Feynman says (21.18) that the (probability) current density can be written $J=\frac{\hbar}{m}\left( \nabla\theta-\frac{q}{\hbar}A \right)\rho$

By insisting that the divergence of the current be zero, Feynman shows that the Laplacian of the phase is zero. (Assuming $A$ is chosen to have zero divergence).

$\nabla^2 \theta =0$

I follow everything up to here.

Then he states that, for a single lump of superconducting material (by which I assume he means finite and simply-connected) this implies $\theta=0$.

I don't understand that step...I recognize that the Laplace equation has $\theta=0$ as its unique solution if the boundary conditions are $\theta=0$. But the implied boundary condition for the superconducting chunk I would assume is only $J=0$ normal to the boundary (so no current flows in/out), which is not equivalent to $\theta=0$.

Now, for concreteness, let me choose a B-field $B=B_0\hat{z}$. Then one choice of $A$ is $A=B_0x\hat{y}$. This choice makes $\nabla\cdot A=0$. In fact, if we use this B-field, then we can set $\nabla\theta=\frac{qB_0x}{\hbar}\hat{y}$, so that $J=0$ everywhere. The divergence of $\nabla \theta$ is zero, so Laplace's equation is satisfied, and we can integrate this up to get a wavefunction

$\psi(r)=\rho e^{i qB_0xy/\hbar}$

So what have I done wrong? Why does Feynman say $\theta=0$? This seems important as the next step results in the a London equation. [EDIT: Jack Chi, below, pointed out that this example was not valid. The reason is that my choice of $\nabla\theta$ has curl, and thus is not a possible gradient. Furthermore, my answer below lists an alternate route of derivation from Feynman's.]

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Neumann boundary conditions imply that $\theta$ must be constant, see maths.qmul.ac.uk/~wjs/MTH5102/laplace10.pdf –  jjcale Sep 12 '13 at 19:14
    
Neumann boundary conditions on what quantity? If on $\theta$, I agree with you, but, as mentioned, part of the difficulty is trying to find any physical justification for those boundary conditions. –  Sam Bader Sep 12 '13 at 23:13

3 Answers 3

There is no magnetic field in a superconductor: this is the Meissner effect. $\vec J$ may be nonzero on the boundary in order to make the magnetic field zero in the interior. A good way to understand this is Ginzburg-Landau theory. The free energy (from wikipedia) $$F = \alpha |\psi|^2 + \frac{\beta}{2} |\psi|^4 + \frac{1}{2m} \left| (-i \hbar \vec \nabla - 2 e \vec A) \psi \right|^2 + \frac{|\vec B|^2}{2 \mu_0}$$ includes a free energy cost to nonzero $\vec J$ and nozero $\vec B$. So, the ground state wavefunction "expels" the magnetic field.

In general, there is a "no node" theorem from Feynman that predicts that the ground state of a bosonic system has a positive definite wavefunction. A superconductor is a clear example of this, insofar that we consider Cooper pairs to be bosonic. Superfluids are the same: the wavefunction is real everywhere.

What you've started to derive is the wavefunction of a Landau level in the symmetric gauge, which describes a charged particle in a magnetic field.

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry, yes, J may be non-zero at the boundary; it is only the boundary-normal component which must be zero. I edited above to fix that typo. –  Sam Bader Feb 3 '13 at 23:37
    
Though I still miss how we get from "theta solves the Laplace equation" to "theta=0 everywhere". This argument from the Feynman lectures arrives at the second London equation from the section that I excerpted above. Then it derives the Meissner effect from the second London equation. So I'd rather avoid being circular by using the Meissner effect in completing this part if possible. I apologize for my confusion, and I hope we can figure this out. Thanks! –  Sam Bader Feb 3 '13 at 23:49

I had the similar issue when I read this part. My handwaving answer is that $\theta$ is continuous from inside the superconductor to the outside vacuum. In vacuum, $\theta=0$ and homogeneous. In your choice $\nabla\theta=\frac{qB_0x}{\hbar}\hat{y}$, you had missed the $\hat{x}$ component. (Do calculate $\theta$ and then take the gradient.) Therefore, $J\neq 0$ everywhere. But indeed, take the curl is a much clear way.

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote accepted

After more reading from other resources, including the pages mentioned by emarti (thank you!), I cannot fill in the step Feynman left out.

However, if, instead of taking the divergence of $J=\frac{\hbar}{m}(\nabla \theta -\frac{q}{\hbar}A)\rho$ like Feynman, you take the curl, you quickly arrive at $\nabla \times\Lambda J=-B$, where $\Lambda=\frac{m^*}{n^*{q^*}^2}$, the second London equation. And this equation leads directly to the Meissner effect. I still don't know why Feynman took the divergence.

For more context on this approach: http://web.mit.edu/6.763/www/FT03/Lectures/Lecture10.pdf

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.