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:2508.08105 · The European Physical Journal H

Theoretical discovery, experiment, and controversy in the Aharonov-Bohm effect: an oral history interview

Yakir Aharonov, Guy Hetzroni

Published Sep 1, 2025• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov’s perspective on the theoretical discovery of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in 1959, during his PhD studies in Bristol with David Bohm, the reception of the effect, the efforts to test it empirically (up to Tonomura’s experiment), and some of the debates regarding the existence of the effect and its interpretation. The interview also discusses related later developments until the 1980s, including modular momentum and Berry’s phase. It includes recollections from meetings with Werner Heisenberg, Richard Feynman, and Chen-Ning Yang, also mentioning John Bell, Robert Chambers, Werner Ehrenberg, Sir Charles Frank, Wendell Furry, Gunnar Källén, Maurice Pryce, Nathan Rosen, John Wheeler, and Eugene Wigner.

DOI
10.1140/epjh/s13129-025-00107-9

Related papers

A Personal History in Quantum Foundations: an Oral History Interview

Yakir Aharonov, Guy Hetzroni

This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov's personal and conceptual recollections from the 1950s to the 2000s, focusing on his academic trajectory, some of his major contributions to quantum foundations, and his perspective on the development of the field. The interview traces Aharonov's academic career through the Technion, University of Bristol, Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, University of South Carolina, Tel Aviv University, George Mason University, and Chapman University. The interview also traces the development of Aharonov's work and collaborations on the EPR paradox, time-energy uncertainty relations, quantum measurement theory, quantum frames of reference, the two-state vector formalism, weak values, protective measurements, and several other contributions. It includes recollections of meetings and discussions with David Bohm, Niels Bohr, John Clauser, Paul Dirac, Rudolf Peierls, Aage Petersen, and Abner Shimony. Also mentioned: David Albert, Jeeva Anandan, Peter Bergmann, Gideon Carmi, Avshalom Elitzur, Dave Finkelstein, Vladimir Fock, Itzhak Kalugai, Ed Lerner, Joel Lebowitz, Stanley Mandelstam, Yuval Ne'eman, Sandu Popescu, Maurice Pryce, Daniel Rohrlich, Nathan Rosen, Joseph Safko, Paul Singer, Daniele Struppa, Leonard Susskind, Lev Vaidman, Chien-Shiung Wu.

physics.hist-phCross-listedarXiv:2610.30998•Oct 23, 2026•0 citations

On the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Why Heisenberg Captures Nonlocality Better Than Schrödinger

Yakir Aharonov

I discuss in detail the history of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in Bristol and my encounters with Akira Tonomura later on. I then propose an idea that developed following the publication of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, namely the importance of modulo momentum and Heisenberg representation in dealing with non-local quantum phenomena.

arXiv:1303.2137•WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Apr 1, 2014•4 citations

More variations on Aharonov-Bohm

C. Alden Mead

The article by Herman Batelaan and Akira Tonomura on the Aharonov-Bohm effect brought back memories of a conference I attended at the University of South Carolina in 1989 commemorating both the 30th anniversary of the Aharonov-Bohm paper and the 5th anniversary of the 1984 paper by Michael Berry that introduced the geometric, now known as the Berry phase. David Bohm, Yakir Aharonov, and Berry were all present. I particularly recall a plenary talk given by Bohm. In it, he expressed astonishment that certain physicists refused to accept the AB effect and even went to great lengths to try to disprove it. As he said, “It would be much more revolutionary for this effect to be wrong than for it to be right,” since it was a clear consequence of fundamental quantum mechanics. I considered his remark very Bohmian, in that (a) no one else would have said it that way, and (b) once uttered, it was obviously true. Bohm’s habit, in his soft-spoken way, of making such blindingly original statements is one of the things I most remember about this unorthodox and profound thinker.© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Apr 1, 2010•0 citations

More Variations on Aharonov-Bohm, Peter A. Sturock, Timothy R. Groves, Alexander Ershkovich, C. Alden Mead, Herman Batelaan and Akira Tonomura: Batelaan and Tonomura Reply

Herman Batelaan, Akira Tonomura

First paragraph: Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday did propose the magnetic version of what is now called the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, 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.

•Jan 1, 2010•0 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 Today•Apr 1, 2010•6 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
Abstract This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov’s perspective on the theoretical discovery of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in 1959, during his PhD studies in Bristol with David Bohm, the reception of the effect, the efforts to test it empirically (up to Tonomura’s experiment), and some of the debates regarding the existence of the effect and its interpretation. The interview also discusses related later developments until the 1980s, including modular momentum and Berry’s phase. It includes recollections from meetings with Werner Heisenberg, Richard Feynman, and Chen-Ning Yang, also mentioning John Bell, Robert Chambers, Werner Ehrenberg, Sir Charles Frank, Wendell Furry, Gunnar Källén, Maurice Pryce, Nathan Rosen, John Wheeler, and Eugene Wigner.
This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov's personal and conceptual recollections from the 1950s to the 2000s, focusing on his academic trajectory, some of his major contributions to quantum foundations, and his perspective on the development of the field. The interview traces Aharonov's academic career through the Technion, University of Bristol, Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, University of South Carolina, Tel Aviv University, George Mason University, and Chapman University. The interview also traces the development of Aharonov's work and collaborations on the EPR paradox, time-energy uncertainty relations, quantum measurement theory, quantum frames of reference, the two-state vector formalism, weak values, protective measurements, and several other contributions. It includes recollections of meetings and discussions with David Bohm, Niels Bohr, John Clauser, Paul Dirac, Rudolf Peierls, Aage Petersen, and Abner Shimony. Also mentioned: David Albert, Jeeva Anandan, Peter Bergmann, Gideon Carmi, Avshalom Elitzur, Dave Finkelstein, Vladimir Fock, Itzhak Kalugai, Ed Lerner, Joel Lebowitz, Stanley Mandelstam, Yuval Ne'eman, Sandu Popescu, Maurice Pryce, Daniel Rohrlich, Nathan Rosen, Joseph Safko, Paul Singer, Daniele Struppa, Leonard Susskind, Lev Vaidman, Chien-Shiung Wu.
The article by Herman Batelaan and Akira Tonomura on the Aharonov-Bohm effect brought back memories of a conference I attended at the University of South Carolina in 1989 commemorating both the 30th anniversary of the Aharonov-Bohm paper and the 5th anniversary of the 1984 paper by Michael Berry that introduced the geometric, now known as the Berry phase. David Bohm, Yakir Aharonov, and Berry were all present. I particularly recall a plenary talk given by Bohm. In it, he expressed astonishment that certain physicists refused to accept the AB effect and even went to great lengths to try to disprove it. As he said, “It would be much more revolutionary for this effect to be wrong than for it to be right,” since it was a clear consequence of fundamental quantum mechanics. I considered his remark very Bohmian, in that (a) no one else would have said it that way, and (b) once uttered, it was obviously true. Bohm’s habit, in his soft-spoken way, of making such blindingly original statements is one of the things I most remember about this unorthodox and profound thinker.© 2010 American Institute of Physics.
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.
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.