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

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Quantum Phases: 50 years of the Aharonov--Bohm effect and 25 years of the Berry phase

Mark R. Dennis, Sandu Popescu, Lev Vaidman A

Published Aug 12, 2010• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This special issue celebrates the discovery of two of the most important aspects of quantum mechanics: the Aharonov–Bohm effect and the Berry phase. The issue includes work presented at two conferences, 50 Years of the Aharonov–Bohm Effect, 11–14 October 2009, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and the Aharonov–Bohm Effect and Berry Phase 50/25 Anniversary, 14–15 December 2009, Bristol University, UK. The Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect and the Berry phase have many things in common, apart from the happy coincidence that they were discovered 25 years apart, making possible such a joint anniversary. First, they were both discovered in the same place, the H H Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, UK. Second, they both were there for everybody to see from day one, from the very beginning of quantum mechanics. They were, so to say, right on the surface; there was no need for sophisticated mathematics or involved constructions. Yet it took so long for somebody to see them. The explanation, we dare to speculate, is that they are so unusual, they challenge so much our everyday experience and ingrained intuitions about physics that it was difficult to recognise them. Third, both the AB effect and the Berry phase are quintessentially quantum; they both manifest themselves as topological/geometric quantum phases. The AB effect revolutionized our understanding of the role of potentials in physics. For the first time, it was shown that a particle moving in a field-free region could be affected by a field in a disjoint region. In doing so, it shattered one of the strongest held principles of physics. In the case of the Berry phase, the importance lies in its absolute generality—the topological/geometric phase named after Berry is acquired by all physical systems when the external parameters they depend upon undergo an adiabatic cyclic change. Remarkably this phase depends only on the geometry of the cyclic path in the abstract parameter space, a fact which deepens our appreciation of the underlying geometry of quantum mechanics. The AB effect and the Berry phase are ubiquitous in modern physics and have implications ranging from the most fundamental to the very applied. First and foremost, they give a deeper understanding of the nature of quantum mechanics itself. Furthermore, we find them in fields as varied as cosmology, particle physics, non-abelian gauge theories, condensed matter, chemical and molecular physics, and laser dynamics. Generalizations of the AB effect to non-abelian gauge theories, such as the Wilson and `t Hooft loops, are important tools for studying confinement and spontaneous symmetry breaking. They explain charge quantization, the quantum Hall effect and the Josephson junction and also play a crucial role in electron microscope holography. Without them an understanding of many effects in the new field of mesoscopic physics, where tiny electronic circuits exhibit quantum behaviour, would be impossible. Like good wine, the AB effect and the Berry phase become finer and more appreciated with time. Even though they appear in textbooks and encyclopaedias, the number of researchers thinking and publishing papers on these two effects is increasing annually. The AB effect and the Berry phase keep being observed in new systems and with every day that passes novel applications are routinely found. This special issue is just a small snapshot of the state of the art 50 and 25 years, respectively, from their discoveries.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/43/35/350301

Related papers

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

The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

Francisco De

In 1984 Berry addressed a quantum system undergoing a unitary and cyclic evolution under the action of a time-dependent Hamiltonian (M. V. Berry, 1984). The process was supposed to be adiabatic, meaning that the time scale of the system’s evolution was much shorter than the time scale of the changing Hamiltonian. Until Berry’s study, it was assumed that for a cyclic Hamiltonian the quantum state would acquire only so-called dynamical phases, deprived of physical meaning. Such phases could be eliminated by redefining the quantum state through a “gauge” transformation of the form |ψ〉 → eiα |ψ〉. However, Berry discovered that besides the dynamical, there was an additional phase that could not be “gauged away” and whose origin was geometric or topological. It depended on the path that |ψ〉 describes in the parameter space spanned by those parameters to which the Hamiltonian owed its time dependence. Berry’s discovery was the starting point for a great amount of investigations that brought to light topological aspects of both quantum and classical systems. Berry’s phase was soon recognized as a special case of more general phases that showed up when dealing with topological aspects of different systems. For example, the Aharonov-Bohm phase could be understood as a geometric phase. The rotation angle acquired by a parallel-transported vector after completing a closed loop in a gravitationally curved space-time region, is also a geometric, Berry-like phase. Another example is the precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum. Berry’s original formulation was directly applicable to the case of a spin-1/2 system evolving under the action of a slowly varying magnetic field that undergoes cyclic changes. A spin-1/2 system is a special case of a two-level system. Another instances are two-level atoms and polarized light, so that also in these cases we should expect to find geometric phases. In fact, the first experimental test of Berry’s phase was done using polarized, classical light (A. Tomita, 1986). Pancharatnam (S. Pancharatnam, 1956) anticipated Berry’s phase when he proposed, back in 1956, how to decide whether two polarization states are “in phase”. Pancharatnam’s prescription is an operational one, based upon observing whether the intensity of the interferogram formed by two polarized beams has maximal intensity. In that case, the two polarized beams are said to be “in phase”. Such a definition is analogous to the definition of distant parallelism in differential geometry. Polarized states can be subjected to different transformations which could be cyclic or not, adiabatic or not, unitary or not. The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

InTech eBooks•Feb 24, 2012•16 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 Today•Jul 30, 2010•12 citations

A study on Berry's geometric phase and the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect

Cássio Cecato Favarato

In this work, we make a review of the literature that the so-called Berry’s geometric phase. A recent issue, which has been employed in various areas of physics. For this, we use, in a number of references, in which many were critical to the theoretical foundation of this work. At first, we focus on the study of the time evolution of quantum systems governed by Hamiltonians operators whose time dependence is manifested by a set of parameters called classical fields. The adiabatic approximation, is justified mathematically when demonstrated the adiabatic theorem. Under these conditions, we obtain geometric phases - Berry’s phase - associated with these systems in different representations, each displaying its particularity. Finally, as a particular case of geometric phase, we studi from the viewpoint of duality transformations of Maxwell’s equations, the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect, extracting the geometric Berry’s phase associated with the dynamics of the magnetic monopole in the presence of the electric vector potential

•Nov 28, 2014•0 citations

Geometric Phases in Classical and Quantum Systems

Simon Godskesen

We are accustomed to think the phase of single particle states does not matter. After all, the phase cancels out when calculating physical observables. However, the geometric phase can cause interference even in single particle states and can be measured. Berry’s phase is a geometric phase the system accumulates as its time-dependent Hamiltonian is subjected to closed adiabatic excursion in parameter space. In this report, we explore how Berry’s phase manifests itself in various fields of physics, both classical and quantum mechanical. The Hannay angle is a classical analogue to Berry’s phase and they are related by a derivative. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a manifestation of Berry’s phase. Net rotation of deformable bodies in the language of gauge theory can be translated as a Berry phase. The well-known BornOppenheimer approximation is a molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and is another manifestation of Berry’s Phase.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 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
This special issue celebrates the discovery of two of the most important aspects of quantum mechanics: the Aharonov–Bohm effect and the Berry phase. The issue includes work presented at two conferences, 50 Years of the Aharonov–Bohm Effect, 11–14 October 2009, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and the Aharonov–Bohm Effect and Berry Phase 50/25 Anniversary, 14–15 December 2009, Bristol University, UK. The Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect and the Berry phase have many things in common, apart from the happy coincidence that they were discovered 25 years apart, making possible such a joint anniversary. First, they were both discovered in the same place, the H H Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, UK. Second, they both were there for everybody to see from day one, from the very beginning of quantum mechanics. They were, so to say, right on the surface; there was no need for sophisticated mathematics or involved constructions. Yet it took so long for somebody to see them. The explanation, we dare to speculate, is that they are so unusual, they challenge so much our everyday experience and ingrained intuitions about physics that it was difficult to recognise them. Third, both the AB effect and the Berry phase are quintessentially quantum; they both manifest themselves as topological/geometric quantum phases. The AB effect revolutionized our understanding of the role of potentials in physics. For the first time, it was shown that a particle moving in a field-free region could be affected by a field in a disjoint region. In doing so, it shattered one of the strongest held principles of physics. In the case of the Berry phase, the importance lies in its absolute generality—the topological/geometric phase named after Berry is acquired by all physical systems when the external parameters they depend upon undergo an adiabatic cyclic change. Remarkably this phase depends only on the geometry of the cyclic path in the abstract parameter space, a fact which deepens our appreciation of the underlying geometry of quantum mechanics. The AB effect and the Berry phase are ubiquitous in modern physics and have implications ranging from the most fundamental to the very applied. First and foremost, they give a deeper understanding of the nature of quantum mechanics itself. Furthermore, we find them in fields as varied as cosmology, particle physics, non-abelian gauge theories, condensed matter, chemical and molecular physics, and laser dynamics. Generalizations of the AB effect to non-abelian gauge theories, such as the Wilson and `t Hooft loops, are important tools for studying confinement and spontaneous symmetry breaking. They explain charge quantization, the quantum Hall effect and the Josephson junction and also play a crucial role in electron microscope holography. Without them an understanding of many effects in the new field of mesoscopic physics, where tiny electronic circuits exhibit quantum behaviour, would be impossible. Like good wine, the AB effect and the Berry phase become finer and more appreciated with time. Even though they appear in textbooks and encyclopaedias, the number of researchers thinking and publishing papers on these two effects is increasing annually. The AB effect and the Berry phase keep being observed in new systems and with every day that passes novel applications are routinely found. This special issue is just a small snapshot of the state of the art 50 and 25 years, respectively, from their discoveries.
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.
In 1984 Berry addressed a quantum system undergoing a unitary and cyclic evolution under the action of a time-dependent Hamiltonian (M. V. Berry, 1984). The process was supposed to be adiabatic, meaning that the time scale of the system’s evolution was much shorter than the time scale of the changing Hamiltonian. Until Berry’s study, it was assumed that for a cyclic Hamiltonian the quantum state would acquire only so-called dynamical phases, deprived of physical meaning. Such phases could be eliminated by redefining the quantum state through a “gauge” transformation of the form |ψ〉 → eiα |ψ〉. However, Berry discovered that besides the dynamical, there was an additional phase that could not be “gauged away” and whose origin was geometric or topological. It depended on the path that |ψ〉 describes in the parameter space spanned by those parameters to which the Hamiltonian owed its time dependence. Berry’s discovery was the starting point for a great amount of investigations that brought to light topological aspects of both quantum and classical systems. Berry’s phase was soon recognized as a special case of more general phases that showed up when dealing with topological aspects of different systems. For example, the Aharonov-Bohm phase could be understood as a geometric phase. The rotation angle acquired by a parallel-transported vector after completing a closed loop in a gravitationally curved space-time region, is also a geometric, Berry-like phase. Another example is the precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum. Berry’s original formulation was directly applicable to the case of a spin-1/2 system evolving under the action of a slowly varying magnetic field that undergoes cyclic changes. A spin-1/2 system is a special case of a two-level system. Another instances are two-level atoms and polarized light, so that also in these cases we should expect to find geometric phases. In fact, the first experimental test of Berry’s phase was done using polarized, classical light (A. Tomita, 1986). Pancharatnam (S. Pancharatnam, 1956) anticipated Berry’s phase when he proposed, back in 1956, how to decide whether two polarization states are “in phase”. Pancharatnam’s prescription is an operational one, based upon observing whether the intensity of the interferogram formed by two polarized beams has maximal intensity. In that case, the two polarized beams are said to be “in phase”. Such a definition is analogous to the definition of distant parallelism in differential geometry. Polarized states can be subjected to different transformations which could be cyclic or not, adiabatic or not, unitary or not. The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects
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.
In this work, we make a review of the literature that the so-called Berry’s geometric phase. A recent issue, which has been employed in various areas of physics. For this, we use, in a number of references, in which many were critical to the theoretical foundation of this work. At first, we focus on the study of the time evolution of quantum systems governed by Hamiltonians operators whose time dependence is manifested by a set of parameters called classical fields. The adiabatic approximation, is justified mathematically when demonstrated the adiabatic theorem. Under these conditions, we obtain geometric phases - Berry’s phase - associated with these systems in different representations, each displaying its particularity. Finally, as a particular case of geometric phase, we studi from the viewpoint of duality transformations of Maxwell’s equations, the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect, extracting the geometric Berry’s phase associated with the dynamics of the magnetic monopole in the presence of the electric vector potential
We are accustomed to think the phase of single particle states does not matter. After all, the phase cancels out when calculating physical observables. However, the geometric phase can cause interference even in single particle states and can be measured. Berry’s phase is a geometric phase the system accumulates as its time-dependent Hamiltonian is subjected to closed adiabatic excursion in parameter space. In this report, we explore how Berry’s phase manifests itself in various fields of physics, both classical and quantum mechanical. The Hannay angle is a classical analogue to Berry’s phase and they are related by a derivative. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a manifestation of Berry’s phase. Net rotation of deformable bodies in the language of gauge theory can be translated as a Berry phase. The well-known BornOppenheimer approximation is a molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and is another manifestation of Berry’s Phase.
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.