Talk:London equations

theres a reference to a decent superconductivity text book at the bottom, so i removed the "references" tag. if its necessary, i can add a further derivation to the article, and cite two other texts which are considered standard solid state textbooks:

if anybody actually wants this, email me at andrew.princep@student.curtin.edu.au

Error

There's a pretty bad error in this article; the equation for the penetration depth is inverted. (Check the units!) It also assumes CGS units with c set to 1. Referencing "Introduction to Solid State Physics" by Charles Kittel, I'm going to take a stab at fixing this. --Starwed 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For now I just fixed the equation, but the units used (which seem to be consistent at least :)) should be specified at the beginning of the article. (Is there a special name for CGS w/ c=1?) --Starwed 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote the article recently, so the problems mentioned above should be fixed. I changed the units to standard Gaussian units because that's what most of my references use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmallw (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. It would be nice to have a note how London equations look in SI.

TomyDuby (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The top of the article needs to state clearly and precisely what the London equations are, please. Bobxii (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

London Gauge

Is there any reason to use the term "London Gauge" instead of the common electrodynamics name "Coulomb Gauge" for div A=0 in section 1? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing#Coulomb_gauge)129.13.72.198 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While div A=0 holds for both the London and Coulomb gauges, there are a number of other requirements for the London gauge which remove all gauge freedom. In the Coulomb gauge you are still allowed some gauge freedom, e.g. a constant shift of A, while the London gauge is completely defined, see the London paper. I have edited the article to include the full definition of the London gauge. --AndreasBM (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

articles and expository issue

superconductivity states:

The Meissner effect was given a phenomenological explanation by the brothers Fritz and Heinz London, who showed that the electromagnetic free energy in a superconductor is minimized provided

but this article states something slightly different.

Neither explicate, refer or cite regarding 'phenomenological' in the context of physical law.

WP has no article on PE; I would draw your attention to a major work on P'al mathematics by a non-'phenomenologist'.

Please see Hermann Weyl and related on phenomenology and physics.

Please see the article on Heisenberg an approaches to models and explanation based on observed phenomena and matrix mathematics.

Of some interest in this regard may be the status of Feynman diagrams as a topic in themselves apart from phenomena.

A brief discussion of Ohm's law might be useful in a PE article ? Snell's Law ?

G. Robert Shiplett 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Account of ∇

I think that I have picked up, only from this talk page, that '∇' is called 'div'. If this is corrct, could it be stated in the article, please?

There are accounts in the article of many of the other symbolic values. Could there also be an account or a reference to an account for this one?

2404:4404:3722:8700:D42A:C67D:F83E:D75D (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)