Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0812.4118 · AIP conference proceedings

Bohm’s Quantum Potential and Quantum Force in Superconductor

А. В. Никулов, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier, Christopher A. Fuchs, Gregg S. Jaeger, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Jan-Åke Larsson, Stig Stenholm

Published Jan 1, 2009• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Bohm’s quantum potential, introduced in 1952, and the quantum force in superconductor, introduced in 2001, allow to describe non‐local force‐free momentum transfer observed in the Ahronov‐Bohm effects. Comparison of the Ahronov‐Bohm effects in the two‐slit interference experiment and in superconductor ring reveals fundamental difference between the Schrodinger wave function and the wave function describing macroscopic quantum phenomena. The Ginzburg‐Landau wave function describing the superconductivity phenomenon can not collapse and an additional postulate, which was implied first by L.D. Landau, must be used for the description of macroscopic quantum phenomena. It is note that quantum principles and postulates should not be universal till the quantum formalism is only phenomenological theory but no description of an unique reality.

DOI
10.1063/1.3109933

Related papers

Proposed measurement of simultaneous particle and wave properties of electric current in a superconductor

Hrvoje Nikolić, Josip Atelj

In a microscopic quantum system one cannot perform a simultaneous measurement of particle and wave properties. This, however, may not be true for macroscopic quantum systems. As a demonstration, we propose to measure the local macroscopic current passed through two slits in a superconductor. According to the theory based on the linearized Ginzburg–Landau equation for the macroscopic pseudo wave function, the streamlines of the measured current should have the same form as particle trajectories in the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics. By an explicit computation we find that the streamlines should show a characteristic wiggling, which is a consequence of quantum interference.

arXiv:2003.14049•Modern Physics Letters A•Oct 23, 2020•1 citation

The quantum mechanics is a non-universal theory. The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic Born's interpretation of the wave function

А. В. Никулов

Quantum mechanics describes successfully numerous quantum phenomena both microscopic and macroscopic, such as superconductivity. But the controversies about quantum mechanics, in the old days and present day, reveal fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. In this work reader attention is drawn first of all to the fact that the orthodox description of superconductivity and some other quantum phenomena uses the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Schrodinger whereas the controversies take place until the present about the positivistic interpretation proposed by Born. Causes and essence of the fundamental obscurity of the Born interpretation are considered in detail in the first part of the paper. The fundamental obscurities of the orthodox description of superconductivity and other quantum phenomena are considered in the end of the paper.

arXiv:1311.4760•Nov 18, 2013•3 citations

About Essence of the Wave Function on Atomic Level and in Superconductors

А. В. Никулов, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

The wave function was proposed for description of quantum phenomena on the atomic level. But now it is well known that quantum phenomena are observed not only on atomic level and the wave function is used for description of macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity. The essence of the wave function on level elementary particles was and is the subject of heated argument among founders of quantum mechanics and other physicists. This essence seems more clear in superconductor. But impossibility of probabilistic interpretation of wave function in this case results to obvious contradiction of quantum principles with some fundamental principles of physics.

arXiv:0803.1840•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•5 citations

Proposal for testing the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect with superconductors

Thomas C. Bachlechner, Matthew Kleban

The phase of the wave function of charged matter is sensitive to the value of the electric potential, even when the matter never enters any region with nonvanishing electromagnetic fields. Despite its fundamental character, this archetypal electric Aharonov-Bohm effect has evidently never been observed. We propose an experiment to detect the electric potential through its coupling to the superconducting order parameter. A potential difference between two superconductors will induce a relative phase shift that is observable via the DC Josephson effect even when no electromagnetic fields ever act on the superconductors, and even if the potential difference is later reduced to zero. This is a type of electromagnetic memory effect, and would directly demonstrate the physical significance of the electric potential.

arXiv:1909.11668•Physical review. B./Physical review. B•May 4, 2020•5 citations

Aharonov-Bohm effects in nanostructures

Vladimir L. Gurtovoi, А. В. Никулов, V. A. Tulin

Measurements of the Little-Parks oscillations at measuring current much lower than the persistent current give unambiguous evidence of the dc current flowing against the force of the dc electric field because of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. This result can assume that an additional force is needed for description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect observed in semiconductor, normal metal and superconductor nanostructures in contrast to the experimental result obtained recently for the case of the two-slit interference experiment.

arXiv:0910.5172•Oct 27, 2009•3 citations

The Aharonov–Bohm effect and Tonomura et al. experiments: Rigorous results

Miguel Ballesteros, Ricardo Weder

The Aharonov–Bohm effect is a fundamental issue in physics. It describes the physically important electromagnetic quantities in quantum mechanics. Its experimental verification constitutes a test of the theory of quantum mechanics itself. The remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [“Observation of Aharonov-Bohm effect by electron holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett 48, 1443 (1982) and “Evidence for Aharonov-Bohm effect with magnetic field completely shielded from electron wave,” Phys. Rev. Lett 56, 792 (1986)] are widely considered as the only experimental evidence of the physical existence of the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Here we give the first rigorous proof that the classical ansatz of Aharonov and Bohm of 1959 [“Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)], that was tested by Tonomura et al., is a good approximation to the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation. This also proves that the electron, that is, represented by the exact solution, is not accelerated, in agreement with the recent experiment of Caprez et al. in 2007 [“Macroscopic test of the Aharonov–Bohm effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)], that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments can not be explained by the action of a force. Under the assumption that the incoming free electron is a Gaussian wave packet, we estimate the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation for all times. We provide a rigorous, quantitative error bound for the difference in norm between the exact solution and the Aharonov–Bohm Ansatz. Our bound is uniform in time. We also prove that on the Gaussian asymptotic state the scattering operator is given by a constant phase shift, up to a quantitative error bound that we provide. Our results show that for intermediate size electron wave packets, smaller than the ones used in the Tonomura et al. experiments, quantum mechanics predicts the results observed by Tonomura et al. with an error bound smaller than 10−99. It would be quite interesting to perform experiments with electron wave packets of intermediate size. Furthermore, we provide a physical interpretation of our error bound.

arXiv:0903.2609•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Dec 1, 2009•25 citations
The Bohm’s quantum potential, introduced in 1952, and the quantum force in superconductor, introduced in 2001, allow to describe non‐local force‐free momentum transfer observed in the Ahronov‐Bohm effects. Comparison of the Ahronov‐Bohm effects in the two‐slit interference experiment and in superconductor ring reveals fundamental difference between the Schrodinger wave function and the wave function describing macroscopic quantum phenomena. The Ginzburg‐Landau wave function describing the superconductivity phenomenon can not collapse and an additional postulate, which was implied first by L.D. Landau, must be used for the description of macroscopic quantum phenomena. It is note that quantum principles and postulates should not be universal till the quantum formalism is only phenomenological theory but no description of an unique reality.
In a microscopic quantum system one cannot perform a simultaneous measurement of particle and wave properties. This, however, may not be true for macroscopic quantum systems. As a demonstration, we propose to measure the local macroscopic current passed through two slits in a superconductor. According to the theory based on the linearized Ginzburg–Landau equation for the macroscopic pseudo wave function, the streamlines of the measured current should have the same form as particle trajectories in the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics. By an explicit computation we find that the streamlines should show a characteristic wiggling, which is a consequence of quantum interference.
Quantum mechanics describes successfully numerous quantum phenomena both microscopic and macroscopic, such as superconductivity. But the controversies about quantum mechanics, in the old days and present day, reveal fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. In this work reader attention is drawn first of all to the fact that the orthodox description of superconductivity and some other quantum phenomena uses the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Schrodinger whereas the controversies take place until the present about the positivistic interpretation proposed by Born. Causes and essence of the fundamental obscurity of the Born interpretation are considered in detail in the first part of the paper. The fundamental obscurities of the orthodox description of superconductivity and other quantum phenomena are considered in the end of the paper.
The wave function was proposed for description of quantum phenomena on the atomic level. But now it is well known that quantum phenomena are observed not only on atomic level and the wave function is used for description of macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity. The essence of the wave function on level elementary particles was and is the subject of heated argument among founders of quantum mechanics and other physicists. This essence seems more clear in superconductor. But impossibility of probabilistic interpretation of wave function in this case results to obvious contradiction of quantum principles with some fundamental principles of physics.
The phase of the wave function of charged matter is sensitive to the value of the electric potential, even when the matter never enters any region with nonvanishing electromagnetic fields. Despite its fundamental character, this archetypal electric Aharonov-Bohm effect has evidently never been observed. We propose an experiment to detect the electric potential through its coupling to the superconducting order parameter. A potential difference between two superconductors will induce a relative phase shift that is observable via the DC Josephson effect even when no electromagnetic fields ever act on the superconductors, and even if the potential difference is later reduced to zero. This is a type of electromagnetic memory effect, and would directly demonstrate the physical significance of the electric potential.
Measurements of the Little-Parks oscillations at measuring current much lower than the persistent current give unambiguous evidence of the dc current flowing against the force of the dc electric field because of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. This result can assume that an additional force is needed for description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect observed in semiconductor, normal metal and superconductor nanostructures in contrast to the experimental result obtained recently for the case of the two-slit interference experiment.
The Aharonov–Bohm effect is a fundamental issue in physics. It describes the physically important electromagnetic quantities in quantum mechanics. Its experimental verification constitutes a test of the theory of quantum mechanics itself. The remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [“Observation of Aharonov-Bohm effect by electron holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett 48, 1443 (1982) and “Evidence for Aharonov-Bohm effect with magnetic field completely shielded from electron wave,” Phys. Rev. Lett 56, 792 (1986)] are widely considered as the only experimental evidence of the physical existence of the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Here we give the first rigorous proof that the classical ansatz of Aharonov and Bohm of 1959 [“Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)], that was tested by Tonomura et al., is a good approximation to the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation. This also proves that the electron, that is, represented by the exact solution, is not accelerated, in agreement with the recent experiment of Caprez et al. in 2007 [“Macroscopic test of the Aharonov–Bohm effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)], that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments can not be explained by the action of a force. Under the assumption that the incoming free electron is a Gaussian wave packet, we estimate the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation for all times. We provide a rigorous, quantitative error bound for the difference in norm between the exact solution and the Aharonov–Bohm Ansatz. Our bound is uniform in time. We also prove that on the Gaussian asymptotic state the scattering operator is given by a constant phase shift, up to a quantitative error bound that we provide. Our results show that for intermediate size electron wave packets, smaller than the ones used in the Tonomura et al. experiments, quantum mechanics predicts the results observed by Tonomura et al. with an error bound smaller than 10−99. It would be quite interesting to perform experiments with electron wave packets of intermediate size. Furthermore, we provide a physical interpretation of our error bound.