We revisit the arguments underlying two well-known arrival-time distributions in quantum mechanics, viz., the Aharonov–Bohm–Kijowski (ABK) distribution, applicable for freely moving particles, and the quantum flux (QF) distribution. An inconsistency in the original axiomatic derivation of Kijowski’s result is pointed out, along with an inescapable consequence of the ‘negative arrival times’ inherent to this proposal (and generalizations thereof). The ABK free-particle restriction is lifted in a discussion of an explicit arrival-time set-up featuring a charged particle moving in a constant magnetic field. A natural generalization of the ABK distribution is in this case shown to be critically gauge-dependent. A direct comparison to the QF distribution, which does not exhibit this flaw, is drawn (its acknowledged drawback concerning the quantum backflow effect notwithstanding).
We present a rigorous no-go theorem that excludes \emph{all} gauge-invariant dynamical explanations of the generalized, time-dependent Aharonov--Bohm (AB) effect. In this generalization, the AB phase is determined by the time-averaged magnetic flux enclosed by the particle's path,
ΔϕAB=ℏe⋅T1∫0TΦ(t)dt. Using a carefully designed protocol in which a constant flux
Φ persists only for a finite interval
Δt after wavepacket splitting and is switched to zero before detection, we demonstrate that during the phase-generating period all gauge-invariant observables of the electron remain identical to those in a zero-flux experiment. Relativistic causality further prohibits backreaction from the source. Consequently, no gauge-invariant quantity---whether local or nonlocal, field-based or source-mediated---can account for the observed phase, which depends solely on flux history. We also critically examine Healey's holonomy interpretation and show that it, too, fails to explain the time-dependent AB effect, as its static formalism lacks the dynamical structure needed to capture temporal averaging. This result establishes the inescapable physical reality of gauge potentials in quantum theory and clarifies the foundational status of the AB effect as a genuine manifestation of potentials rather than fields.
We prove that the Bohmian arrival time of the one-dimensional Schrödinger evolution violates the quadratic form structure on which Kijowski's axiomatic treatment of arrival times is based. Within Kijowski's framework, for a free right moving wave packet Ψ, the various notions of arrival time (at a fixed point x on the real line) all yield the same average arrival time . We derive the inequality relating the average Bohmian arrival time to that of Kijowksi. We prove that if and only if Ψ leads to position probability backflow through x .
We prove that the Bohmian arrival time of the 1D Schroedinger evolution violates the quadratic form structure on which Kijowski's axiomatic treatment of arrival times is based. Within Kijowski's framework, for a free right moving wave packet, the various notions of arrival time (at a fixed point x on the real line) all yield the same average arrival time. We derive an inequality relating the average Bohmian arrival time to the one of Kijowksi. We prove that the average Bohmian arrival time is less than Kijowski's one if and only if the wave packet leads to position probability backflow through x. Otherwise the two average arrival times coincide.
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=T1∫0TeΦ(t)dt, with the total phase shift, including kinetic contributions, equaling
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
R, the AB phase shift is also proportional to the time average of the enclosed flux
Φenc(R,t), with the total phase shift depending only on the initial enclosed flux
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 quantum time-of-arrival problem is discussed within the standard formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics with parametric time. It is shown that a general class of arrival-time probability distributions results from the assumption that the arrival process of a quantum particle is similar in nature to other time-dependent arrival-type processes occurring, e.g., in population biology or queue theory. A simple but illustrative example related to the well-known Wigner discussion of the time-energy uncertainty relation is given and the numerical results obtained are compared with Kijowski's distribution [Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 362 (1974)] of arrival times for a free quantum particle.
We respond to the points raised in the preceding Comment [] on our recent work [], which introduced a theoretical framework for the scalar electric Aharonov-Bohm effect. In this Reply, we take the opportunity to address specific criticisms, by referring to foundational aspects of gauge invariance and time-dependent quantum systems. We explain why the gauging procedure used in the Comment leads to inconsistencies and show that, when applied similarly to the well-established magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, it would yield demonstrably incorrect conclusions. Moreover, we highlight the consistency of our results with canonical treatments of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and we reaffirm the physicality of energy shifts in field-free regions, an effect observed in the magnetic and predicted in the electric Aharonov-Bohm contexts. We believe that this response contributes to a deeper understanding of the subtleties involved in gauge theory and quantum phase phenomena.