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:1009.1613 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Against a proposed alternative explanation of the Aharonov–Bohm effect

Murray Peshkin

Published Aug 12, 2010• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect is understood to demonstrate that the Maxwell fields can act nonlocally in some situations. However it has been suggested from time to time that the AB effect is somehow a consequence of a local classical electromagnetic field phenomenon involving energy that is temporarily stored in the overlap between the external field and the field of which the beam particle is the source. That idea was shown in the past not to work for some models of the source of the external field. Here a more general proof is presented for the magnetic AB effect to show that the overlap energy is always compensated by another contribution to the energy of the magnetic field in such a way that the sum of the two is independent of the external flux. Therefore no such mechanism can underlie the AB effect.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/43/35/354031

Related papers

Gauge-independent description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect

Xiang Li, T. H. Hansson, Wei Ku

The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is a pure quantum effect that implies a measurable phase shift in the wave function for a charged particle that encircles a magnetic flux located in a region inaccessible to the particle. Classically, such a nonlocal effect appears to be impossible since the Lorentz force depends on only the magnetic field at the location of the particle. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian, and thus the Schr\"odinger equation, has a local coupling between the current due to the particle and the electromagnetic vector potential $\mathbf{A}$, which extends to the entire space beyond the region with finite magnetic field. This has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that in quantum mechanics $\mathbf{A}$ is in some sense more ``fundamental'' than $\mathbf{B}$ in spite of the former being gauge dependent and thus unobservable. Here we shall, with a general proof followed by a few examples, demonstrate that the AB effect can be fully accounted for by considering only the gauge-invariant $\mathbf{B}$ field, as long as it is included as part of the quantum action of the entire isolated system. The price for the gauge-invariant formulation is that we must give up locality---the AB phase for the particle will arise from the change in the action for the $\mathbf{B}$ field in the region inaccessible to the particle.

arXiv:2209.11091•Physical Review A•Sep 21, 2022•9 citations

Is the Aharonov–Bohm effect local?

Richard Healey

Introduction Aharonov and Bohm (1959) drew attention to the quantum mechanical prediction that an interference pattern due to a beam of charged particles could be produced or altered by the presence of a constant magnetic field in a region from which the particles were excluded. This effect was first experimentally detected by Chambers (1960), and since then has been repeatedly and more convincingly demonstrated in a series of experiments including the elegant experiments of Tonomura et al. (1986). At first sight, the Aharonov-Bohm effect seems to manifest nonlocality. It seems clear that the (electro)magnetic field acts on the particles since it affects the interference pattern they produce; and this must be action at a distance since the particles pass through a region from which that field is absent. Now it is commonly believed that this appearance of nonlocality can be removed by taking it to be the electromagnetic potential A μ rather than the field F μν that acts locally on the particles: indeed, Bohm and Aharonov themselves took the effect to demonstrate the independent reality of the (electro)magnetic potential. But the nonlocality is real, not apparent, and cannot be removed simply by invoking the electromagnetic potential. While there may indeed be more to electromagnetism than can be represented just by the values of F μν at all space-time points, acknowledging this fact still does not permit a completely local account of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 18, 1999•4 citations

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

Murray Peshkin

I am an author of the 1961 paper that first called the Aharonov-Bohm effect by that name. 1 1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). The term has since appeared in more than 1000 published papers. However, it has been suggested a few times, most recently by Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves, that the name does not do justice to Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday, who found in 1949 that the motion of electrons can be influenced by magnetic fields confined to regions that the electrons do not enter. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). I argue that the name Aharonov-Bohm effect is appropriate, although for a reason that I did not fully appreciate in 1961.The 1959 Aharonov-Bohm paper profoundly changed the way we think about electromagnetic fields in quantum mechanics. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). The gauge-invariant part of the vector potential was promoted to a real physical field, not just a convenient device for summarizing certain information about the electric and magnetic fields. In the words of C. N. Yang, “The electromagnetic field strength fµv in quantum mechanics underdescribes electromagnetism, as the Bohm-Aharonov effect demonstrates … information about the phase factor exp[ie∮(A⋅dx)/ℏc] for all closed loops correctly describes electromagnetism.” 4 4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5.See also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). A century earlier, James Clerk Maxwell changed the way we think about action at a distance by identifying what we now call the Maxwell fields as real physical things that contain energy and momentum and that enable microscopic conservation laws; they are not just mathematical functions that summarize the necessary information about the past motions of charges. Later those physical fields had to be quantized. Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm found that in quantum mechanics the Maxwell fields in a multiply connected region do not contain all the physics; the vector potential must also be endowed with reality to make sense of the subtler interactions in quantum mechanics. Neither Aharonov and Bohm nor Ehrenberg and Siday were the first to observe that magnetic fields in places where a charged particle’s wave function vanishes may influence the motion of that particle. 5 5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). Paul Dirac, in his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, noted that the electron’s wavefunction must vanish on singular flux lines but said nothing about that raising any question of nonlocality. Fritz London pointed out in the 1930s that the motion of electrons in a superconducting ring depends on an external magnetic flux through the hole in the ring, where the electrons cannot go. He wrote in his 1937 paper, “The most stable state of a ring has no current, unless an external magnetic field is applied.” Like Dirac, he said nothing about a nonlocal action of the magnetic field being surprising or unusual. Of course, London, like Dirac, was focusing on something else.Ehrenberg and Siday were also focusing on something else—electron optics—when they found in 1949 that the motion of an electron can depend on the magnetic field in a region from which the electron is excluded. They chose not to mention that curious phenomenon in the abstract of their paper, although they did explicitly say elsewhere that it was “curious.”None of those earlier authors went on to conclude that such a phenomenon implies that the vector potential has to be seen as a real physical field in quantum mechanics. Only Aharonov and Bohm did that.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5. Google ScholarSee also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) Google ScholarCrossref F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). , Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Aug 1, 2010•1 citation

Locality of the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher effect

Kicheon Kang

We address the question of locality versus nonlocality in the Aharonov-Bohm and the Aharonov-Casher effects. For this purpose, we investigate all possible configurations of ideal shielding of the overlap between the electromagnetic fields generated by a charge and by a magnetic flux and analyze their consequences on the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher interference. In a classical treatment of shielding, the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher effect vanishes regardless of the geometry of shielding when the local overlap of electromagnetic fields is completely eliminated. On the other hand, the result depends on the configuration of shielding if the charge quantization in the superconducting shield is taken into account. It is shown that our results are fully understood in terms of the fluctuating local-field interaction. Our analysis strongly supports the alternative view on the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher interference that the effects originate from the local action of electromagnetic fields.

arXiv:1408.0607•Physical Review A•May 22, 2015•20 citations

Generalized Aharonov-Bohm Effect

Shan Gao

The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect highlights the fundamental role of electromagnetic potentials in quantum mechanics, manifesting as a phase shift for a charged particle in field-free regions. While well-established for static magnetic fluxes, the effect's behavior under time-varying fluxes remains an open and debated question. Employing the WKB method, we derive the AB phase shift for a time-dependent magnetic vector potential, demonstrating that for circular paths in the quasistatic regime, it is proportional to the time-averaged enclosed magnetic flux, \(Δφ_{\rm AB} = \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T e Φ(t) \, dt\), with the total phase shift, including kinetic contributions, equaling \(e Φ(0)\). For non-circular paths, the phase shift depends on both the flux history and path geometry, revealing the effect's hybrid nature involving gauge potentials and induced electric fields. We verify the consistency of our gauge choice with Maxwell's equations and discuss the implications for local versus nonlocal interpretations of the AB effect. We also generalize the results to scenarios with nonzero external magnetic fields, where the enclosed flux is through the actual electron paths, and for circular paths of radius $R$, the AB phase shift is also proportional to the time average of the enclosed flux \(Φ_{\rm enc}(R,t)\), with the total phase shift depending only on the initial enclosed flux \(e Φ_{\rm enc}(R,0)\); for general non-circular paths, the external magnetic field affects trajectories and phase accumulation through the Lorentz force, leading to additional path dependence. These findings clarify the role of gauge-dependent potentials and induced fields in the generalized AB effect, offering new theoretical insights and potential applications in quantum technologies.

quant-pharXiv:2601.17659•Foundations of Physics•Jan 27, 2026•1 citation

An interpretation for Aharonov-Bohm effect with classical electromagnetic theory

Gaobiao Xiao

The magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that charged particles may be affected by the vector potential in regions without any electric or magnetic fields [1]. The Aharonov-Bohm effect was experimentally confirmed [2-3] and has been found in many situations [4-6]. A common explanation is based on quantum mechanics, which states that the wavefunctions associated with the charges will accumulate a phase shift due to the vector potential. However, consensus about its nature and interpretation has not been achieved [7-14]. We here propose a simple but reasonable interpretation based on the theory for electromagnetic radiation and couplings [15]. The energy associated with a pulse radiator is divided into a Coulomb-velocity energy and a radiative energy, together with a macroscopic Schott energy accounting for the energy exchange between them. All these energies are expressed with terms including the potentials, so are the mutual coupling energies. There exists a force acting on the moving charges even though the fields completely vanish. This force makes the charges pass through the magnetic solenoid in different velocity with different path length, causing a phase shift the same as that obtained with quantum mechanics. The theory is originally aimed for providing an interpretation for electromagnetic radiation and mutual coupling. It is derived directly from the Maxwell theory with no modification but only substitution and reorganization.

arXiv:2201.12292•Jan 26, 2022•3 citations
The Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect is understood to demonstrate that the Maxwell fields can act nonlocally in some situations. However it has been suggested from time to time that the AB effect is somehow a consequence of a local classical electromagnetic field phenomenon involving energy that is temporarily stored in the overlap between the external field and the field of which the beam particle is the source. That idea was shown in the past not to work for some models of the source of the external field. Here a more general proof is presented for the magnetic AB effect to show that the overlap energy is always compensated by another contribution to the energy of the magnetic field in such a way that the sum of the two is independent of the external flux. Therefore no such mechanism can underlie the AB effect.
The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is a pure quantum effect that implies a measurable phase shift in the wave function for a charged particle that encircles a magnetic flux located in a region inaccessible to the particle. Classically, such a nonlocal effect appears to be impossible since the Lorentz force depends on only the magnetic field at the location of the particle. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian, and thus the Schr\"odinger equation, has a local coupling between the current due to the particle and the electromagnetic vector potential A\mathbf{A}A, which extends to the entire space beyond the region with finite magnetic field. This has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that in quantum mechanics A\mathbf{A}A is in some sense more ``fundamental'' than B\mathbf{B}B in spite of the former being gauge dependent and thus unobservable. Here we shall, with a general proof followed by a few examples, demonstrate that the AB effect can be fully accounted for by considering only the gauge-invariant B\mathbf{B}B field, as long as it is included as part of the quantum action of the entire isolated system. The price for the gauge-invariant formulation is that we must give up locality---the AB phase for the particle will arise from the change in the action for the B\mathbf{B}B field in the region inaccessible to the particle.
Introduction Aharonov and Bohm (1959) drew attention to the quantum mechanical prediction that an interference pattern due to a beam of charged particles could be produced or altered by the presence of a constant magnetic field in a region from which the particles were excluded. This effect was first experimentally detected by Chambers (1960), and since then has been repeatedly and more convincingly demonstrated in a series of experiments including the elegant experiments of Tonomura et al. (1986). At first sight, the Aharonov-Bohm effect seems to manifest nonlocality. It seems clear that the (electro)magnetic field acts on the particles since it affects the interference pattern they produce; and this must be action at a distance since the particles pass through a region from which that field is absent. Now it is commonly believed that this appearance of nonlocality can be removed by taking it to be the electromagnetic potential A μ rather than the field F μν that acts locally on the particles: indeed, Bohm and Aharonov themselves took the effect to demonstrate the independent reality of the (electro)magnetic potential. But the nonlocality is real, not apparent, and cannot be removed simply by invoking the electromagnetic potential. While there may indeed be more to electromagnetism than can be represented just by the values of F μν at all space-time points, acknowledging this fact still does not permit a completely local account of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
I am an author of the 1961 paper that first called the Aharonov-Bohm effect by that name. 1 1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). The term has since appeared in more than 1000 published papers. However, it has been suggested a few times, most recently by Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves, that the name does not do justice to Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday, who found in 1949 that the motion of electrons can be influenced by magnetic fields confined to regions that the electrons do not enter. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). I argue that the name Aharonov-Bohm effect is appropriate, although for a reason that I did not fully appreciate in 1961.The 1959 Aharonov-Bohm paper profoundly changed the way we think about electromagnetic fields in quantum mechanics. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). The gauge-invariant part of the vector potential was promoted to a real physical field, not just a convenient device for summarizing certain information about the electric and magnetic fields. In the words of C. N. Yang, “The electromagnetic field strength fµv in quantum mechanics underdescribes electromagnetism, as the Bohm-Aharonov effect demonstrates … information about the phase factor exp[ie∮(A⋅dx)/ℏc] for all closed loops correctly describes electromagnetism.” 4 4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5.See also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). A century earlier, James Clerk Maxwell changed the way we think about action at a distance by identifying what we now call the Maxwell fields as real physical things that contain energy and momentum and that enable microscopic conservation laws; they are not just mathematical functions that summarize the necessary information about the past motions of charges. Later those physical fields had to be quantized. Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm found that in quantum mechanics the Maxwell fields in a multiply connected region do not contain all the physics; the vector potential must also be endowed with reality to make sense of the subtler interactions in quantum mechanics. Neither Aharonov and Bohm nor Ehrenberg and Siday were the first to observe that magnetic fields in places where a charged particle’s wave function vanishes may influence the motion of that particle. 5 5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). Paul Dirac, in his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, noted that the electron’s wavefunction must vanish on singular flux lines but said nothing about that raising any question of nonlocality. Fritz London pointed out in the 1930s that the motion of electrons in a superconducting ring depends on an external magnetic flux through the hole in the ring, where the electrons cannot go. He wrote in his 1937 paper, “The most stable state of a ring has no current, unless an external magnetic field is applied.” Like Dirac, he said nothing about a nonlocal action of the magnetic field being surprising or unusual. Of course, London, like Dirac, was focusing on something else.Ehrenberg and Siday were also focusing on something else—electron optics—when they found in 1949 that the motion of an electron can depend on the magnetic field in a region from which the electron is excluded. They chose not to mention that curious phenomenon in the abstract of their paper, although they did explicitly say elsewhere that it was “curious.”None of those earlier authors went on to conclude that such a phenomenon implies that the vector potential has to be seen as a real physical field in quantum mechanics. Only Aharonov and Bohm did that.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5. Google ScholarSee also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) Google ScholarCrossref F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). , Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.
We address the question of locality versus nonlocality in the Aharonov-Bohm and the Aharonov-Casher effects. For this purpose, we investigate all possible configurations of ideal shielding of the overlap between the electromagnetic fields generated by a charge and by a magnetic flux and analyze their consequences on the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher interference. In a classical treatment of shielding, the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher effect vanishes regardless of the geometry of shielding when the local overlap of electromagnetic fields is completely eliminated. On the other hand, the result depends on the configuration of shielding if the charge quantization in the superconducting shield is taken into account. It is shown that our results are fully understood in terms of the fluctuating local-field interaction. Our analysis strongly supports the alternative view on the Aharonov-Bohm-Casher interference that the effects originate from the local action of electromagnetic fields.
The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect highlights the fundamental role of electromagnetic potentials in quantum mechanics, manifesting as a phase shift for a charged particle in field-free regions. While well-established for static magnetic fluxes, the effect's behavior under time-varying fluxes remains an open and debated question. Employing the WKB method, we derive the AB phase shift for a time-dependent magnetic vector potential, demonstrating that for circular paths in the quasistatic regime, it is proportional to the time-averaged enclosed magnetic flux, ΔφAB=1T∫0TeΦ(t) dtΔφ_{\rm AB} = \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T e Φ(t) \, dtΔφAB​=T1​∫0T​eΦ(t)dt, with the total phase shift, including kinetic contributions, equaling eΦ(0)e Φ(0)eΦ(0). For non-circular paths, the phase shift depends on both the flux history and path geometry, revealing the effect's hybrid nature involving gauge potentials and induced electric fields. We verify the consistency of our gauge choice with Maxwell's equations and discuss the implications for local versus nonlocal interpretations of the AB effect. We also generalize the results to scenarios with nonzero external magnetic fields, where the enclosed flux is through the actual electron paths, and for circular paths of radius RRR, the AB phase shift is also proportional to the time average of the enclosed flux Φenc(R,t)Φ_{\rm enc}(R,t)Φenc​(R,t), with the total phase shift depending only on the initial enclosed flux eΦenc(R,0)e Φ_{\rm enc}(R,0)eΦenc​(R,0); for general non-circular paths, the external magnetic field affects trajectories and phase accumulation through the Lorentz force, leading to additional path dependence. These findings clarify the role of gauge-dependent potentials and induced fields in the generalized AB effect, offering new theoretical insights and potential applications in quantum technologies.
The magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that charged particles may be affected by the vector potential in regions without any electric or magnetic fields [1]. The Aharonov-Bohm effect was experimentally confirmed [2-3] and has been found in many situations [4-6]. A common explanation is based on quantum mechanics, which states that the wavefunctions associated with the charges will accumulate a phase shift due to the vector potential. However, consensus about its nature and interpretation has not been achieved [7-14]. We here propose a simple but reasonable interpretation based on the theory for electromagnetic radiation and couplings [15]. The energy associated with a pulse radiator is divided into a Coulomb-velocity energy and a radiative energy, together with a macroscopic Schott energy accounting for the energy exchange between them. All these energies are expressed with terms including the potentials, so are the mutual coupling energies. There exists a force acting on the moving charges even though the fields completely vanish. This force makes the charges pass through the magnetic solenoid in different velocity with different path length, causing a phase shift the same as that obtained with quantum mechanics. The theory is originally aimed for providing an interpretation for electromagnetic radiation and mutual coupling. It is derived directly from the Maxwell theory with no modification but only substitution and reorganization.