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

Neutrons Cannot Encircle Lines of Electric Charge Unphased

Barbara Goss Levi

Published Jan 1, 1990• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Glasses were raised at a conference at the University of South Carolina in December to toast the 30-year-old prediction that gave reality to the magnetic vector potential. According to that prediction, made by Yakir Aharonov (University of South Carolina and the University of Tel Aviv) and David Bohm (Birkbeck College of London University), an electron will experience a phase shift as it encircles an infinitely long solenoid, even though there is no magnetic field—only a vector potential—in the region where it travels. Almost all those who originally doubted this conclusion have long since been persuaded by several elegant experimental confirmations.

DOI
10.1063/1.2810394

Related papers

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

From Primitives to the Aharonov–Bohm Phase

Allen Proxmire

In 1959, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm pointed out an experiment that should be impossible according to the standard intuitions of classical electromagnetism. A charged particle is sent through a double‑slit apparatus with a long thin solenoid placed between the two paths. The solenoid contains a magnetic field; the regions traversed by the particle do not. In classical mechanics, the particle should be entirely unaffected — no force, no torque, no Lorentz coupling. The interference pattern should be unchanged whether the solenoid is on or off. It isn't. When the solenoid is energized, the interference pattern shifts by Δφ = (q/ℏ) Φ, where Φ = ∫B·dA is the magnetic flux threading the solenoid. The particle’s wavefunction registers a region of magnetic field through which the particle never travels. Chambers performed the experiment in 1960; Tonomura confirmed it definitively with superconducting measurements in 1986. The effect is now standard textbook material and one of the deepest empirical phenomena in quantum mechanics. The puzzle is structural. In classical electromagnetism, the magnetic vector potential A was treated as a mathematical convenience — a quantity from which B = ∇×A could be computed but with no independent physical reality. The AB effect breaks this picture: the interference shift depends on ∮A·dx around the closed path, a gauge‑invariant integral that is non‑zero in regions where B = 0. The vector potential carries physical information that the magnetic field alone does not. Standard QM accommodates this by accepting that A is the physically meaningful quantity in the quantum context. This works mathematically but leaves a deeper question open: why should A have physical reality at all? This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework provides an answer through Theorem 17. T17 establishes that gauge fields are the continuum‑level appearance of the substrate’s rule‑type connection — the substrate object that carries rule‑type label information from one substrate region to another. The gauge potential is not a mathematical convenience; it is the substrate’s parallel‑transport infrastructure for the rule‑type relabeling group. The AB phase is the integral of this substrate connection around a non‑contractible loop in a multiply‑connected substrate channel — a substrate‑level monodromy with observable consequences whenever the substrate’s topology supports closed loops the wavefunction can wind around. Stokes’ theorem connects the monodromy to the enclosed flux: Δφ = qΦ/ℏ. The structural payoff: the AB phase is not a mysterious nonlocal effect of the gauge potential. It is the substrate‑level monodromy of the rule‑type connection around a closed loop in a multiply‑connected substrate region. The gauge potential’s physical reality is not a postulate; it is what T17 establishes the substrate to provide.

•May 12, 2026•0 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

Classical Electromagnetism and the Aharonov–Bohm Phase Shift

Timothy H. Boyer

Foundations of Physics•Jun 1, 2000•24 citations

Topological and Geometric Phases

Helmut Rauch, Samuel A. Werner

The usual vector Aharonov–Bohm effect involves the quantum interference of electrons encircling a solenoid due to the magnetic vector potential. The analogous Aharonov–Casher effect was predicted for the neutron, which carries a magnetic dipole moment, encircling a line of electric charge . It was first observed by neutron interferometry, as described in this chapter. An analogous effect using neutrons and a pulsed magnetic solenoid in one leg of the interferometer has also been observed. This experiment using both polarized and unpolarized neutrons is described in this chapter. It is the first observation of the scalar Aharonov-Bohm effect. The idea of geometric phases was later shown to be pervasive in physics. These ideas were brought to full fruition in a neutron interferometry experiment in the late 1990s. The connections of this experiment with the helical field experiment of Bitter and Dubbers and the absorption experiment of Hasegawa are also discussed. The confinement-induced phase when neutrons move between narrow plates is another example of a non-local interaction of neutrons.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jan 15, 2015•0 citations

The Aharonov–Bohm effect for a knotted magnetic solenoid

Roman V. Buniy, Thomas W. Kephart

arXiv:0808.1891•Physics Letters A•Jan 20, 2009•8 citations
Glasses were raised at a conference at the University of South Carolina in December to toast the 30-year-old prediction that gave reality to the magnetic vector potential. According to that prediction, made by Yakir Aharonov (University of South Carolina and the University of Tel Aviv) and David Bohm (Birkbeck College of London University), an electron will experience a phase shift as it encircles an infinitely long solenoid, even though there is no magnetic field—only a vector potential—in the region where it travels. Almost all those who originally doubted this conclusion have long since been persuaded by several elegant experimental confirmations.
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.
In 1959, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm pointed out an experiment that should be impossible according to the standard intuitions of classical electromagnetism. A charged particle is sent through a double‑slit apparatus with a long thin solenoid placed between the two paths. The solenoid contains a magnetic field; the regions traversed by the particle do not. In classical mechanics, the particle should be entirely unaffected — no force, no torque, no Lorentz coupling. The interference pattern should be unchanged whether the solenoid is on or off. It isn't. When the solenoid is energized, the interference pattern shifts by Δφ = (q/ℏ) Φ, where Φ = ∫B·dA is the magnetic flux threading the solenoid. The particle’s wavefunction registers a region of magnetic field through which the particle never travels. Chambers performed the experiment in 1960; Tonomura confirmed it definitively with superconducting measurements in 1986. The effect is now standard textbook material and one of the deepest empirical phenomena in quantum mechanics. The puzzle is structural. In classical electromagnetism, the magnetic vector potential A was treated as a mathematical convenience — a quantity from which B = ∇×A could be computed but with no independent physical reality. The AB effect breaks this picture: the interference shift depends on ∮A·dx around the closed path, a gauge‑invariant integral that is non‑zero in regions where B = 0. The vector potential carries physical information that the magnetic field alone does not. Standard QM accommodates this by accepting that A is the physically meaningful quantity in the quantum context. This works mathematically but leaves a deeper question open: why should A have physical reality at all? This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework provides an answer through Theorem 17. T17 establishes that gauge fields are the continuum‑level appearance of the substrate’s rule‑type connection — the substrate object that carries rule‑type label information from one substrate region to another. The gauge potential is not a mathematical convenience; it is the substrate’s parallel‑transport infrastructure for the rule‑type relabeling group. The AB phase is the integral of this substrate connection around a non‑contractible loop in a multiply‑connected substrate channel — a substrate‑level monodromy with observable consequences whenever the substrate’s topology supports closed loops the wavefunction can wind around. Stokes’ theorem connects the monodromy to the enclosed flux: Δφ = qΦ/ℏ. The structural payoff: the AB phase is not a mysterious nonlocal effect of the gauge potential. It is the substrate‑level monodromy of the rule‑type connection around a closed loop in a multiply‑connected substrate region. The gauge potential’s physical reality is not a postulate; it is what T17 establishes the substrate to provide.
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.
The usual vector Aharonov–Bohm effect involves the quantum interference of electrons encircling a solenoid due to the magnetic vector potential. The analogous Aharonov–Casher effect was predicted for the neutron, which carries a magnetic dipole moment, encircling a line of electric charge . It was first observed by neutron interferometry, as described in this chapter. An analogous effect using neutrons and a pulsed magnetic solenoid in one leg of the interferometer has also been observed. This experiment using both polarized and unpolarized neutrons is described in this chapter. It is the first observation of the scalar Aharonov-Bohm effect. The idea of geometric phases was later shown to be pervasive in physics. These ideas were brought to full fruition in a neutron interferometry experiment in the late 1990s. The connections of this experiment with the helical field experiment of Bitter and Dubbers and the absorption experiment of Hasegawa are also discussed. The confinement-induced phase when neutrons move between narrow plates is another example of a non-local interaction of neutrons.