I am having some conceptual issues with the London equations, namely the equation for the magnetic field and penetration depth.
$$ \frac{d\vec{J}}{dt} = \frac{ne^2}{m}\vec{E}$$
Behavior 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}$
$$\nabla × \vec{J} = -\frac{ne^2}{m}\vec{B}$$
Substituting maxwells equations we obtain.
$\nabla^2 \vec{B} = \frac{\mu_0 n e^2}{m} \vec{B}$
The solution to such an equation is a exponential decay of the magnetic field, or B=0. Which makes sense as when there is no external magnetic field B=0, but when there is a changing external magnetic field, an induced current opposes this magnetic field, causing the decay.
Thought experiment:
what if I were to manually "spawn" a constant magnetic field, and then "spawn" a superconductor.
There would be no changing magnetic field meaning no current to oppose the existing magnetic field, so the B field must be the external field.
Any increase or decrease to this B field now, would "lock " the magnetic field inside the superconductor to be the original external B field!
Or similar scenario, I have a constant magnetic field, and THEN i decrease the temperature of the conductor so that its a superconductor, the magnetic field should still be constant, as there are no induced currents.
Problems:
The London equations in their present form allow for no such constant solution, almost as if they inherently assume the magnetic field always starts from zero, and then from that 0 field, any increase or decrease in field strength generates a opposing field within the superconductor.
I have a feeling that this incompatibility with constant fields have something to do with
$ \frac{d \nabla × \vec{J}}{dt} = - \frac{ne^2}{m} \frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}$
And the assumption that when integrating, c= 0
Not assuming this:
$\nabla^2 \vec{B} = \frac{\mu_0 n e^2}{m} \vec{B} + \vec{c}$
I feel that this equation makes more physical sense as per my thought experiments, as this equation allows for such constant solutions to exist.
However I'm not sure what boundary condition I would need to find what the constant is, if C mirrored the right term but negative, then constant solutions could exist ( although would ruin the equation for decaying solutions)
I assume C depends on the initial B fields value at t=0
So my question is:
Taking my thought experiments into account. Why do no constant solutions exist in the London equations? As the induced currents only occus when a changing magnetic field is in play. A constant one should not effect anything