Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Census packet CC-92, priced on the census scout row (Batch 5, 2026-11-03) and the standard scholarly record: London & London (1935), Proc. R. Soc. A 149(866), 71-88. Perfect conductivity (E = 0 in the bulk) forces dB/dt = 0 -- flux freezing, interior ratio B_inside/B_applied = 1.000000 -- which contradicts the Meissner expulsion of 1933. The Londons close the gap by postulating a constitutive law for the supercurrent, in the standard telling setting the integration constant perfect conductivity leaves free to zero: curl j_s = -(n_s e^2/m) B, equivalently j_s proportional to -A in the London gauge. The penetration depth lambda_L = sqrt(m/mu0 n_s e^2) then follows; notebook grid at n_s = 1e27 / 3e27 / 1e28 / 3e28 / 1e29 m^-3 returns 168.05 / 97.02 / 53.14 / 30.68 / 16.80 nm, with B(x) = B0 exp(-x/lambda_L) attenuating to 0.367879 / 0.049787 / 0.006738 at 1 / 3 / 5 depths, and the two-fluid temperature form priced as the phenomenological companion, not a derivation. Verdict: same equations, two constants, two different physics -- the postulate is one number's worth of choice and it is the whole effect. n_s is carried, not derived, in 1935; BCS (1957) is closure-by-replacement whose own interaction is postulated (CC-47), so the chain's debt is logged at both ends; measured penetration depths are calibration exhibits, never a derivation of the law. EXTENSION. Quantum gravity NOT SOLVED; vacuum catastrophe NOT SOLVED.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: