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

Physics Today

The Aharonov–Bohm effects: Variations on a subtle theme

Herman Batelaan, Akira Tonomura

Published Sep 1, 2009• 143 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The notion, introduced 50 years ago, that electrons could be affected by electromagnetic potentials without coming in contact with actual force fields was received with a skepticism that has spawned a flourishing of experimental tests and expansions of the original idea.
DOI
10.1063/1.3226854

Related papers

The electric Aharonov-Bohm effect

Ricardo Weder

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

arXiv:1006.1385•Journal of Mathematical Physics•May 1, 2011•16 citations

New Perspectives on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect

Mostafa E. El Demery

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

•May 3, 2013•0 citations

Landmarks: Ghostly Influence of Distant Magnetic Field

David Lindley

In the Aharonov-Bohm effect, proposed in 1959, quantum particles are affected in measurable ways by the classical electromagnetic potential, previously regarded as a purely mathematical construct. The electromagnetic field is too far from the particles to have any direct influence.

Focus•Jul 1, 2011•0 citations

Focus: Landmarks: Ghostly Influence of Distant Magnetic Field

David Lindley

In the Aharonov-Bohm effect, proposed in 1959, quantum particles are affected in measurable ways by the classical electromagnetic potential, previously regarded as a purely mathematical construct. The electromagnetic field is too far from the particles to have any direct influence.

•Jul 22, 2011•0 citations

Some observations on the dynamics of the Aharonov-Bohm effect

Xingshu Zhu, Walter C. Henneberger

It is often said that the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect (1959) is an effect that is due to the vector potential. This is considered remarkable since a quantity that is not uniquely determined has a measurable effect. The authors show that, in the symmetric Coulomb gauge, (e/c)A(r) is simply the momentum of the electromagnetic field. The effect may equally well be considered an effect of the electromagnetic momentum. Thus, it is possible to discuss the AB effect strictly in terms of observables. The idea that the effect is due to the vector potential is correct, but sheds little light on the physics of the effect.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Sep 7, 1990•17 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
The seminal paper of Aharonov and Bohm [Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)]10.1103/PhysRev.115.485 is at the origin of a very extensive literature in some of the more fundamental issues in physics. They claimed that electromagnetic fields can act at a distance on charged particles even if they are identically zero in the region of space where the particles propagate, that the fundamental electromagnetic quantities in quantum physics are not only the electromagnetic fields but also the circulations of the electromagnetic potentials; what gives them a real physical significance. They proposed two experiments to verify their theoretical conclusions. The magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, where an electron is influenced by a magnetic field that is zero in the region of space accessible to the electron, and the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect where an electron is affected by a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in the region where the electron is propagating, i.e., such that the electric field vanishes along its trajectory. The Aharonov-Bohm effects imply such a strong departure from the physical intuition coming from classical physics that it is no wonder that they remain a highly controversial issue after more than fifty years, in spite of the fact that they are discussed in most of the text books in quantum mechanics. The magnetic case has been studied extensively. The experimental issues were settled by the remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1443 (1982); Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 792 (1986)] with toroidal magnets, that gave a strong evidence of the existence of the effect, and by the recent experiment of Caprez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)]10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.210401 that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments cannot be explained by the action of a force. The theoretical issues were settled by Ballesteros and Weder [Commun. Math. Phys. 285, 345 (2009)10.1007/s00220-008-0579-1; J. Math. Phys. 50, 122108 (2009)10.1063/1.3266176; Commun. Math. Phys. 303, 175 (2011)]10.1007/s00220-010-1166-9 who rigorously proved that quantum mechanics predicts the experimental results of Tonomura et al. and of Caprez et al. The electric Aharonov-Bohm effect has been much less studied. Actually, its existence, that has not been confirmed experimentally, is a very controversial issue. In their 1959 paper Aharonov and Bohm proposed an ansatz for the solution to the Schrödinger equation in regions where there is a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in space. It consists in multiplying the free evolution by a phase given by the integral in time of the potential. The validity of this ansatz predicts interference fringes between parts of a coherent electron beam that are subjected to different potentials. In this paper we prove that the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation is given by the Aharonov-Bohm ansatz up to an error bound in norm that is uniform in time and that decays as a constant divided by the velocity. Our results give, for the first time, a rigorous proof that quantum mechanics predicts the existence of the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect, under conditions that we provide. We hope that our results will stimulate the experimental research on the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a quantum mechanical effect, that is, has no classical counterpart. The effect was predicted in 1959 in a seminal paper of Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm [AB59] in which they demonstrated that a beam of electrons is affected by the existence of the electric/magnetic field even though electrons travel through field-free regions. Aharonov and Bohm carried out two hypothetical experiments to support their claim that potentials are more fundamental than fields and they are respon-sible of the effect. Since then, the debate has arisen around whether potentials are mathematical tools or fundamental entities in physics. Different arguments have been set to explain the results predicted by Aharonov and Bohm and experimentally confirmed. Amongst these arguments, the first argument adopted by Aharonov and Bohm was that potentials are physically significant. Many have claimed that fields do have non-local features, i.e. action at a distance. Others have claimed that topological effects may interpret the effect in which potentials are modeled as connections in higher-dimensional fiber bun-dle geometries. The most recent argument has been proposed by Vaidman [Vai12] who claimed that the the composite system is represented by one state, an entangled state, and due to the electromagnetic interactions part of this state is changed, hence, the total state. In the present essay, I will discuss the latter argument as well as reviewing some other arguments. i
It is often said that the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect (1959) is an effect that is due to the vector potential. This is considered remarkable since a quantity that is not uniquely determined has a measurable effect. The authors show that, in the symmetric Coulomb gauge, (e/c)A(r) is simply the momentum of the electromagnetic field. The effect may equally well be considered an effect of the electromagnetic momentum. Thus, it is possible to discuss the AB effect strictly in terms of observables. The idea that the effect is due to the vector potential is correct, but sheds little light on the physics of the effect.
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.