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

Electromagnetics

Some Rare Peripheral Implications of Electromagnetism

Evert Jan Post

Published Jul 1, 2005• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This essay is essentially a plea for recognizing the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) integral as part of a quantum superstructure of Maxwell theory counting units of flux. The Gauss–Ampère (GA) integral then is added as a counter of net charge as well as an exterior product of the two, suggested by Kiehn, as counter of units of action. De facto, the AB integral already has this status, yet how its prestatistical nature relates to standard statistics-based quantum mechanics needs delineation. For electromagnetism to claim this quantum superstructure as a legitimate member of its family it is unavoidable to take issue with the Copenhagen view of quantum mechanics as stated in the introductory paragraph of this article. The limiting mathematical traditions that have been standing in the way of such developments are briefly reviewed here. They pertain to the relations between local and global procedures as delineated in de Rham theory as well as recognizing certain metric-free aspects of electromagnetism as a requirement sine qua non for counting in the micro-domain. For extended discussions, references, and proofs pertaining to the ensuing Quantum Reprogramming of the Copenhagen interpretation, readers are invited to consult the monograph of that title, by the present author.

DOI
10.1080/02726340590957452

Related papers

A study of Aharonov-Bohm effect: from quantum electrodynamics to one particle quantum mechanics

Benliang Li, Daniel William Hewak, Qi Jie Wang

In this article, we start our discussion on the Aharonov-Bohm effect then raise a plausible interpretation within the quantum electrodynamics (QED) framework. We provide a quantum treatment of the source of the electromagnetic potential and argue that the underlying mechanism in AB effect can be viewed as interactions between electrons described by QED theory where the interactions are mediated by virtue photons. On further analysis, we claim that the framework of one particle quantum mechanics (OPQM) can be shown, in general, as a mathematically approximated model which can be reformulated from QED theory. In addition, the classical Maxwell equations are derived from QED scattering process while both classical electromagnetic fields and potentials serve as mathematical tools that are constructed to approximate the interactions among elementary particles described by QED physics, i.e. neither classical fields nor potentials represent any real entities of nature. At the conclusion of this article, we make a few remarks on the hypnosis of the existence of magnetic monopoles.

•Jul 12, 2016•2 citations

Foreword

Enrico G. Beltrametti, Gianni Cassinelli, Peter Carruthers

For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 28, 1984•0 citations

Gauge-independent description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect

Xiang Li, T. H. Hansson, Wei Ku

The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is a pure quantum effect that implies a measurable phase shift in the wave function for a charged particle that encircles a magnetic flux located in a region inaccessible to the particle. Classically, such a nonlocal effect appears to be impossible since the Lorentz force depends on only the magnetic field at the location of the particle. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian, and thus the Schr\"odinger equation, has a local coupling between the current due to the particle and the electromagnetic vector potential $\mathbf{A}$, which extends to the entire space beyond the region with finite magnetic field. This has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that in quantum mechanics $\mathbf{A}$ is in some sense more ``fundamental'' than $\mathbf{B}$ in spite of the former being gauge dependent and thus unobservable. Here we shall, with a general proof followed by a few examples, demonstrate that the AB effect can be fully accounted for by considering only the gauge-invariant $\mathbf{B}$ field, as long as it is included as part of the quantum action of the entire isolated system. The price for the gauge-invariant formulation is that we must give up locality---the AB phase for the particle will arise from the change in the action for the $\mathbf{B}$ field in the region inaccessible to the particle.

arXiv:2209.11091•Physical Review A•Sep 21, 2022•9 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

More variations on Aharonov-Bohm

Herman Batelaan, Akira Tonomura

Batelaan and Tonomura reply: Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday did propose the magnetic version of what is now called the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, 1 1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. 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.Alexander Ershkovich notes that in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics, both the action and the Hamiltonian depend on the vector potential; he ponders whether the AB effect might have a classical manifestation. Newton’s formulation of classical mechanics is equivalent to the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Because the absence of a field means the absence of a force in Newton’s formulation, classical trajectories are unaffected. That result is not expected to change in the equivalent Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Thus the AB effect is usually considered to be a pure quantum effect. On the other hand, we may interpret “classical mechanics” in a broader sense, such as in general relativistic classical mechanics. In electrodynamics classical trajectories are not affected by a localized magnetic field through which they do not pass. However, considering that the energy content of a current-carrying solenoid is larger than that of one without current, the trajectory is clearly affected gravitationally, at least in principle. Though not due to the AB effect, that result elucidates that a generalized description may lead to other insights. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation may be an example of a theoretical vehicle by which to explore generalizations such as relativistic effects, separation of variables, multiple particle effects, or the classical limit of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. C. Alden Mead recollects interesting statements made by Bohm. We agree fully with Bohm’s statement that “it would be much more revolutionary for this effect to be wrong than for it to be right.” Attempts to disprove the AB effect should be seen for what they are, outright attempts at finding limits to the validity of quantum mechanics itself. And although quantum mechanics is unfinished with respect to, say, de-coherence theory and quantum gravity, the AB effect appears to be well within its validity range.We do not share Bohm’s astonishment that, as Mead relates, “certain physicists refused to accept the AB effect and even went to great lengths to try to disprove it.” Rather, to risk overusing a platitude, extraordinary phenomena should be exposed to extraordinary scrutiny. Failed attempts to disprove an idea often provide insight into its fundamental character. In that context, we reiterate the main message of our article. Many facets of the AB effect—for example, the electric version, the dispersionless nature, relativistic momentum conservation, the relation to the Mott-Schwinger effect, and the AB effects for other than electromagnetic gauge-invariant theories—need exploration. We predict a bright future for the AB effect, with many surprises to come.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Apr 1, 2010•1 citation

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 essay is essentially a plea for recognizing the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) integral as part of a quantum superstructure of Maxwell theory counting units of flux. The Gauss–Ampère (GA) integral then is added as a counter of net charge as well as an exterior product of the two, suggested by Kiehn, as counter of units of action. De facto, the AB integral already has this status, yet how its prestatistical nature relates to standard statistics-based quantum mechanics needs delineation. For electromagnetism to claim this quantum superstructure as a legitimate member of its family it is unavoidable to take issue with the Copenhagen view of quantum mechanics as stated in the introductory paragraph of this article. The limiting mathematical traditions that have been standing in the way of such developments are briefly reviewed here. They pertain to the relations between local and global procedures as delineated in de Rham theory as well as recognizing certain metric-free aspects of electromagnetism as a requirement sine qua non for counting in the micro-domain. For extended discussions, references, and proofs pertaining to the ensuing Quantum Reprogramming of the Copenhagen interpretation, readers are invited to consult the monograph of that title, by the present author.
In this article, we start our discussion on the Aharonov-Bohm effect then raise a plausible interpretation within the quantum electrodynamics (QED) framework. We provide a quantum treatment of the source of the electromagnetic potential and argue that the underlying mechanism in AB effect can be viewed as interactions between electrons described by QED theory where the interactions are mediated by virtue photons. On further analysis, we claim that the framework of one particle quantum mechanics (OPQM) can be shown, in general, as a mathematically approximated model which can be reformulated from QED theory. In addition, the classical Maxwell equations are derived from QED scattering process while both classical electromagnetic fields and potentials serve as mathematical tools that are constructed to approximate the interactions among elementary particles described by QED physics, i.e. neither classical fields nor potentials represent any real entities of nature. At the conclusion of this article, we make a few remarks on the hypnosis of the existence of magnetic monopoles.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is a pure quantum effect that implies a measurable phase shift in the wave function for a charged particle that encircles a magnetic flux located in a region inaccessible to the particle. Classically, such a nonlocal effect appears to be impossible since the Lorentz force depends on only the magnetic field at the location of the particle. In quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian, and thus the Schr\"odinger equation, has a local coupling between the current due to the particle and the electromagnetic vector potential A\mathbf{A}A, which extends to the entire space beyond the region with finite magnetic field. This has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that in quantum mechanics A\mathbf{A}A is in some sense more ``fundamental'' than B\mathbf{B}B in spite of the former being gauge dependent and thus unobservable. Here we shall, with a general proof followed by a few examples, demonstrate that the AB effect can be fully accounted for by considering only the gauge-invariant B\mathbf{B}B field, as long as it is included as part of the quantum action of the entire isolated system. The price for the gauge-invariant formulation is that we must give up locality---the AB phase for the particle will arise from the change in the action for the B\mathbf{B}B field in the region inaccessible to the particle.
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
Batelaan and Tonomura reply: Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday did propose the magnetic version of what is now called the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, 1 1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. 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.Alexander Ershkovich notes that in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of classical mechanics, both the action and the Hamiltonian depend on the vector potential; he ponders whether the AB effect might have a classical manifestation. Newton’s formulation of classical mechanics is equivalent to the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Because the absence of a field means the absence of a force in Newton’s formulation, classical trajectories are unaffected. That result is not expected to change in the equivalent Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. Thus the AB effect is usually considered to be a pure quantum effect. On the other hand, we may interpret “classical mechanics” in a broader sense, such as in general relativistic classical mechanics. In electrodynamics classical trajectories are not affected by a localized magnetic field through which they do not pass. However, considering that the energy content of a current-carrying solenoid is larger than that of one without current, the trajectory is clearly affected gravitationally, at least in principle. Though not due to the AB effect, that result elucidates that a generalized description may lead to other insights. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation may be an example of a theoretical vehicle by which to explore generalizations such as relativistic effects, separation of variables, multiple particle effects, or the classical limit of the de Broglie-Bohm theory. C. Alden Mead recollects interesting statements made by Bohm. We agree fully with Bohm’s statement that “it would be much more revolutionary for this effect to be wrong than for it to be right.” Attempts to disprove the AB effect should be seen for what they are, outright attempts at finding limits to the validity of quantum mechanics itself. And although quantum mechanics is unfinished with respect to, say, de-coherence theory and quantum gravity, the AB effect appears to be well within its validity range.We do not share Bohm’s astonishment that, as Mead relates, “certain physicists refused to accept the AB effect and even went to great lengths to try to disprove it.” Rather, to risk overusing a platitude, extraordinary phenomena should be exposed to extraordinary scrutiny. Failed attempts to disprove an idea often provide insight into its fundamental character. In that context, we reiterate the main message of our article. Many facets of the AB effect—for example, the electric version, the dispersionless nature, relativistic momentum conservation, the relation to the Mott-Schwinger effect, and the AB effects for other than electromagnetic gauge-invariant theories—need exploration. We predict a bright future for the AB effect, with many surprises to come.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. A. Tonomura, Electron Holography, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (1999), p. 63. Google ScholarCrossref© 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.