arXiv:0903.2609 · Journal of Mathematical Physics

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

Miguel Ballesteros, Ricardo Weder

Published Dec 1, 2009• 25 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3266176

Related papers

The electric Aharonov-Bohm effect

Ricardo Weder

The seminal paper of Aharonov and Bohm [Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)]10.1103/PhysRev.115.485 is at the origin of a very extensive literature in some of the more fundamental issues in physics. They claimed that electromagnetic fields can act at a distance on charged particles even if they are identically zero in the region of space where the particles propagate, that the fundamental electromagnetic quantities in quantum physics are not only the electromagnetic fields but also the circulations of the electromagnetic potentials; what gives them a real physical significance. They proposed two experiments to verify their theoretical conclusions. The magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, where an electron is influenced by a magnetic field that is zero in the region of space accessible to the electron, and the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect where an electron is affected by a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in the region where the electron is propagating, i.e., such that the electric field vanishes along its trajectory. The Aharonov-Bohm effects imply such a strong departure from the physical intuition coming from classical physics that it is no wonder that they remain a highly controversial issue after more than fifty years, in spite of the fact that they are discussed in most of the text books in quantum mechanics. The magnetic case has been studied extensively. The experimental issues were settled by the remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1443 (1982); Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 792 (1986)] with toroidal magnets, that gave a strong evidence of the existence of the effect, and by the recent experiment of Caprez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)]10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.210401 that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments cannot be explained by the action of a force. The theoretical issues were settled by Ballesteros and Weder [Commun. Math. Phys. 285, 345 (2009)10.1007/s00220-008-0579-1; J. Math. Phys. 50, 122108 (2009)10.1063/1.3266176; Commun. Math. Phys. 303, 175 (2011)]10.1007/s00220-010-1166-9 who rigorously proved that quantum mechanics predicts the experimental results of Tonomura et al. and of Caprez et al. The electric Aharonov-Bohm effect has been much less studied. Actually, its existence, that has not been confirmed experimentally, is a very controversial issue. In their 1959 paper Aharonov and Bohm proposed an ansatz for the solution to the Schrödinger equation in regions where there is a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in space. It consists in multiplying the free evolution by a phase given by the integral in time of the potential. The validity of this ansatz predicts interference fringes between parts of a coherent electron beam that are subjected to different potentials. In this paper we prove that the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation is given by the Aharonov-Bohm ansatz up to an error bound in norm that is uniform in time and that decays as a constant divided by the velocity. Our results give, for the first time, a rigorous proof that quantum mechanics predicts the existence of the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect, under conditions that we provide. We hope that our results will stimulate the experimental research on the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect.

arXiv:1006.1385Journal of Mathematical PhysicsMay 1, 201116 citations

The Aharonov–Bohm Effect: Gauge Potentials, Quantum Phase, and Experimental Evidence

Giancarmine Sparso

This technical note gives a self-contained exposition of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, aimed at advanced undergraduate students. Starting from the role of electromagnetic potentials in classical electrodynamics, it introduces gauge freedom, the quantum Hamiltonian with minimal coupling, and the gauge covariance of the Schrödinger equation. It then derives the Aharonov–Bohm phase for both the time-dependent scalar configuration and the magnetic configuration, showing how a charged particle acquires an observable phase shift while travelling only through regions where the electromagnetic field vanishes. The final part reviews the experimental evidence, from the early electron-interference experiments of Chambers and of Möllenstedt and Bayh to the 1986 toroidal-magnet experiment of Tonomura and collaborators. In that experiment, superconducting shielding confined the magnetic flux completely and closed the leakage-field loophole, while flux quantization produced the characteristic half-fringe shift. The note is expository and pedagogical: it does not present original research results and has not been peer reviewed. Originally developed from study notes prepared for the PHYS02 scientific talk at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, in July 2026; an earlier version of the notes has been publicly available on GitHub since August 2026. Corrections and comments are more than welcome at giancarminesparso@gmail.com.

Jul 1, 20260 citations

New Perspectives on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect

Mostafa E. El Demery

The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a quantum mechanical effect, that is, has no classical counterpart. The effect was predicted in 1959 in a seminal paper of Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm [AB59] in which they demonstrated that a beam of electrons is affected by the existence of the electric/magnetic field even though electrons travel through field-free regions. Aharonov and Bohm carried out two hypothetical experiments to support their claim that potentials are more fundamental than fields and they are respon-sible of the effect. Since then, the debate has arisen around whether potentials are mathematical tools or fundamental entities in physics. Different arguments have been set to explain the results predicted by Aharonov and Bohm and experimentally confirmed. Amongst these arguments, the first argument adopted by Aharonov and Bohm was that potentials are physically significant. Many have claimed that fields do have non-local features, i.e. action at a distance. Others have claimed that topological effects may interpret the effect in which potentials are modeled as connections in higher-dimensional fiber bun-dle geometries. The most recent argument has been proposed by Vaidman [Vai12] who claimed that the the composite system is represented by one state, an entangled state, and due to the electromagnetic interactions part of this state is changed, hence, the total state. In the present essay, I will discuss the latter argument as well as reviewing some other arguments. i

May 3, 20130 citations

More variations on Aharonov-Bohm

Peter Andrew Sturrock, T. R. Groves

Having read “The Aharonov-Bohm Effects: Variations on a Subtle Theme” by Herman Batelaan and Akira Tono-mura (Physics Today, September 2009, page 38), we note with some dismay that the principal effect, that related to magnetic flux, continues to be attributed to its re-discoverers rather than to the original discoverers. Batelaan and Tonomura write, “The AB effect was already implicit in the 1926 Schrödinger equation, but it would be another three decades before theorists Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm pointed it out.” 1 1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). That is incorrect: It took only two decades before the effect was pointed out, not by Aharonov and Bohm but by Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond “Rory” Siday. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Aharonov and Bohm cited that prior publication in their second article. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). According to Bohm’s biographer F. David Peat, “After their first paper had been published, Bohm learned that the effect had already been postulated by a maverick physicist called Rory E. Siday.” 4 4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. It seems curious that the biographer should use the term “postulated” rather than “proposed” and that he should comment on Siday’s personality but not on Ehrenberg’s. One of us (Sturrock) knew them both: Raymond was very smart but somewhat brash; Werner was erudite and a model of propriety, who would never have subscribed his name to an article unless he was convinced it was correct.It seems that the main scientific, rather than sociological, reason that the AB proposal was taken more seriously than the ES proposal is that the former was presented in the context of quantum mechanics, the latter in the context of electron optics. Aharonov and Bohm made a rapid transition from quantum mechanics to wave theory. Ehrenberg and Siday made a more detailed transition from geometrical optics to wave theory. For the case of magnetic flux, the two articles presented identical theoretical predictions. Our view is that the ES article was tedious but conceptually sound, whereas the AB article was lively but involved a questionable conceptual leap—namely, a relativistic generalization based on a noncovariant analysis. Soon after Sturrock arrived at Stanford University in 1955, and before the Aharonov-Bohm publication, he asked Leonard Schiff, Stanford’s quantum mechanics expert, whether Schiff found the Ehrenberg-Siday proposal convincing. He did.In the interests of accuracy and of giving credit where credit is due, we think it would be appropriate to use “Ehrenberg-Siday effect” for the case of magnetic interference and to reserve “Aharonov-Bohm effect” for electrical interference.We are indebted to Elliott Bloom, Dieter Kern, Walt Harrison, Peter Hawkes, Garret Moddel, Fabian Pease, Jeff Scargle, and Lenny Susskind for helpful discussions on this matter.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. Google Scholar© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayApr 1, 20106 citations

Aptly named Aharonov-Bohm effect has classical analogue, long history

Michael Berry

Writing about what is usually termed the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves argue (Physics Today, April 2010, page 8) that the same physics was discovered a decade earlier 1 1. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). and should rightly be called the Ehrenberg-Siday effect. I agree that Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday deserve recognition for their anticipation of AB. Indeed, in recent talks celebrating the 50th anniversary of AB, I began by describing the unfairly neglected paper by Ehrenberg and Siday. Nevertheless, I have come to a different conclusion from Sturrock and Groves: The expression “Aharonov-Bohm effect” is justified, for two reasons.First, although there is no doubt that the work by Ehrenberg and Siday anticipated how inaccessible magnetic flux can influence electron interference, that was as a curiosity, at the end of a paper whose main emphasis was the Hamiltonian analysis of electron optics. By contrast, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm emphasized from the start, as an essential and general aspect of quantum mechanics, the physical influence of inaccessible fields that act nonlocally through the vector potential.Second, Ehrenberg and Siday’s semi-classical approximation—essentially applying the Dirac magnetic phase factor to electrons traveling on either side of the flux—implies a wavefunction that is multivalued and therefore not the correct solution of Schrödinger’s equation. The lack of a single-valued wavefunction leaves their prediction open to doubt. By contrast, Aharonov and Bohm derived the exact single-valued solution for waves scattered by a flux line. Recently, it was shown that the Ehrenberg-Siday approximation corresponds to the first terms in a “many-whirls” representation that treats the exact AB wavefunction as a topological sum over paths circling the flux. 2 2. M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A (in press). Attribution of credit is a delicate matter. It tends to excite strong feelings, and I write about it reluctantly. But the Ehrenberg-Siday paper does seem to exemplify the unfortunate phenomenon identified by Alfred North White-head in a 1916 address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science: “Everything of importance has been said before, by someone who did not discover it.”In a companion letter in the April 2010 issue, Alexander Ershkovich correctly points out that the AB effect is present in classical Hamiltonian mechanics, even though remote magnetic fields cannot influence Newtonian trajectories. He advocates a “search for experiments that might prove … a classical analogue of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.” Such an experiment exists already. In the classical physics of waves on a moving medium, the flow velocity acts like the vector potential in quantum mechanics, so the flow vorticity acts like the magnetic field; the analogy is precise. Fine details of the AB wavefunction were observed in ripples on the surface of water swirling irrotationally into a bathtub vortex, 3 3. M. V. Berry, R. G. Chambers, M. D. Large, C. Upstill, J. C. Walmsley, Eur. J. Phys. 1, 154 (1980). whose core is the analogue of inaccessible magnetic flux. REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref2. M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A (in press). Google Scholar3. M. V. Berry, R. G. Chambers, M. D. Large, C. Upstill, J. C. Walmsley, Eur. J. Phys. 1, 154 (1980). Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayJul 30, 201012 citations

More variations on Aharonov-Bohm

Herman Batelaan, Akira Tonomura

Batelaan and Tonomura reply: Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday did propose the magnetic version of what is now called the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, 1 1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. as Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves point out. We had included this reference in the early versions of our manuscript. However, limited space directed the focus of the paper to the “effect without a force” discussion, rather than a historic perspective.Alexander Ershkovich notes that in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics, both the action and the Hamiltonian depend on the vector potential; he ponders whether the AB effect might have a classical manifestation. Newton’s formulation of classical mechanics is equivalent to the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Because the absence of a field means the absence of a force in Newton’s formulation, classical trajectories are unaffected. That result is not expected to change in the equivalent Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Thus the AB effect is usually considered to be a pure quantum effect. On the other hand, we may interpret “classical mechanics” in a broader sense, such as in general relativistic classical mechanics. In electrodynamics classical trajectories are not affected by a localized magnetic field through which they do not pass. However, considering that the energy content of a current-carrying solenoid is larger than that of one without current, the trajectory is clearly affected gravitationally, at least in principle. Though not due to the AB effect, that result elucidates that a generalized description may lead to other insights. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation may be an example of a theoretical vehicle by which to explore generalizations such as relativistic effects, separation of variables, multiple particle effects, or the classical limit of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. C. Alden Mead recollects interesting statements made by Bohm. We agree fully with Bohm’s statement that “it would be much more revolutionary for this effect to be wrong than for it to be right.” Attempts to disprove the AB effect should be seen for what they are, outright attempts at finding limits to the validity of quantum mechanics itself. And although quantum mechanics is unfinished with respect to, say, de-coherence theory and quantum gravity, the AB effect appears to be well within its validity range.We do not share Bohm’s astonishment that, as Mead relates, “certain physicists refused to accept the AB effect and even went to great lengths to try to disprove it.” Rather, to risk overusing a platitude, extraordinary phenomena should be exposed to extraordinary scrutiny. Failed attempts to disprove an idea often provide insight into its fundamental character. In that context, we reiterate the main message of our article. Many facets of the AB effect—for example, the electric version, the dispersionless nature, relativistic momentum conservation, the relation to the Mott-Schwinger effect, and the AB effects for other than electromagnetic gauge-invariant theories—need exploration. We predict a bright future for the AB effect, with many surprises to come.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayApr 1, 20101 citation