1
$\begingroup$

I have read about how a perfect conductor responses to a time-dependent magnetic field. It was stated that the "equation of motion" of such a perfect conductor is given by $$\frac{dj(r, t)}{dt}=ne^2E(r,t),$$ as well as this equation follows from $j(r,t)=nev(r,t)$, where $v$ is the drift velocity. I don't understand why the first equation follows from the second one. Can somebody explain this to me?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It doesn't follow from the second one. The first is derived from the drude model of conductivity. It is the steady state solution $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2022 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ That's kind of confusing me. I thought, the Drude model results in a linear relationship between current density and the electric field? And here, we have a linear relationship between the change in time of the current density and the electric field? Does this mean E has an exponentiell form here? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2022 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, misread the equation. I have made an answer that derives this expression $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2022 at 18:41

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

This is one of the London equations.

This comes from modeling the electrons as free electrons.

As such the motion of a single electron is

$\vec{F} = e\vec{E}$

$m\frac{d \vec{v}}{dt} = e\vec{E}$

$m\frac{d ne\vec{v}}{dt} = ne^2\vec{E}$

$m\frac{d \vec{J}}{dt} = ne^2\vec{E}$

$ \frac{d\vec{J}}{dt} = \frac{ne^2}{m}\vec{E}$

Behaviour of magnetic fields in perfect conductors

$ \frac{d \nabla × \vec{J}}{dt} = \frac{ne^2}{m}\nabla × \vec{E}$

$ \frac{d \nabla × \vec{J}}{dt} = - \frac{ne^2}{m} \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}$

$\nabla × \vec{J} = -\frac{ne^2}{m}\vec{B}$

Finding $\nabla × \vec{J}$:

$\nabla × (\nabla × \vec{B} = \mu_0 \vec{J})$

$\nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{B}) - \nabla^2 \vec{B} = \mu_0 \nabla × \vec{J}$

$- \nabla^2 \vec{B} = \mu_0 \nabla × \vec{J}$

Sub in:

$\nabla^2 \vec{B} = \frac{\mu_0 n e^2}{m} \vec{B}$

Whose solution is an exponential decay of the magnetic field. Which is why "there is no magnetic field inside a superconductor". This makes sense, as any changing external magnetic field induces an electric field, which generates a current to oppose the flux

There are a few assumptions in this derivation however.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I think, I get it now :3 $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ Instead of modeling $\vec{J}$ as some FIXED value like most situations. Using the solution to F=ma to determine the velocity of a charge density, models the current density in relation to the electric field. If n Is fixed, at acts as though at EVERY point in space, the velocity of charge follows f=ma. , substituting this into the definition of current density, turns it in into a velocity FIELD, instead of a velocity of a single particle at a particular moment in time $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ As $ \vec{J}(x,y,z,t) = \rho \vec{V}(x,y,z,t)$ . The velocity we're substituting in is $\vec{V}(t)$ so when substituting, it acts as if that velocity is at all points in space ( a velocity FIELD independant in space) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 15:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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