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

Physical Review A

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Asymmetry of the Aharonov-Bohm diffraction pattern and Ehrenfest’s theorem’ ’’

Donald H. Kobe, Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro

Published Aug 1, 1994• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The assumptions under which the ``no-shift'' theorem of Semon and Taylor [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 50, 1954 (1994)] is valid are examined. For some choices of possible experimental parameters, the assumptions are not satisfied.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.50.1959

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Asymmetry of the Aharonov-Bohm diffraction pattern and Ehrenfest’s theorem’’

Mark D. Semon, John R. Taylor

In a recent paper [D. H. Kobe, V. C. Aguilera-Navarro, and R. M. Ricotta, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6192 (1992)], Kobe et al. have calculated the expectation values of position and momentum in the Aharonov-Bohm effect and have found that both are shifted by the Aharonov-Bohm potentials. Although these shifts appear to contradict certain ``no-shift'' theorems proved by various authors, we show that this apparent contradiction is the result of different assumptions. Specifically, one of the assumptions on which the no-shift theorems are based does not hold for the parameters used by Kobe et al.; that is, with their parameters, there is no reason to expect the no-shift theorems to hold. On the other hand, with the parameters of actual two-slit experiments, all of the conditions of the no-shift theorems do hold and the no-shift theorems do apply.

Physical Review A•Aug 1, 1994•4 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Role of potentials in the Aharonov-Bohm effect’ ”

Lev Vaidman A

The preceding Comment challenged my claim that potentials might be just auxiliary mathematical tools and that they are not necessary for explaining physical phenomena. The Comment did not confront my explanation without the potentials of the Aharonov-Bohm effects that appeared in the original article, but stated that I cannot apply this explanation for seven other examples. In my reply, using my method, I provide explanations of one of the examples, show that two other examples are not relevant, and agree that the remaining examples require further analysis. However, I argue that none of the examples provides robust counterexamples to my claim, similar to the original Aharonov-Bohm setups which were explained in my article, so the Comment does not refute my claim.

arXiv:1508.00743•Physical Review A•Aug 31, 2015•34 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Energy-level shift of quantum systems via the scalar electric Aharonov-Bohm effect' ”

R. Y. Chiao, Harold Hart, Michael Scheibner +4 more

We respond to the points raised in the preceding Comment [] on our recent work [], which introduced a theoretical framework for the scalar electric Aharonov-Bohm effect. In this Reply, we take the opportunity to address specific criticisms, by referring to foundational aspects of gauge invariance and time-dependent quantum systems. We explain why the gauging procedure used in the Comment leads to inconsistencies and show that, when applied similarly to the well-established magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, it would yield demonstrably incorrect conclusions. Moreover, we highlight the consistency of our results with canonical treatments of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and we reaffirm the physicality of energy shifts in field-free regions, an effect observed in the magnetic and predicted in the electric Aharonov-Bohm contexts. We believe that this response contributes to a deeper understanding of the subtleties involved in gauge theory and quantum phase phenomena.

Physical Review A•May 29, 2025•0 citations

Comment on Reply to Comment on ‘Electromagnetic lensing using the Aharonov–Bohm effect’

Markus Lentzen

Abstract Recently, Schreiber and Wolf (2024 New J. Phys. 26 118002) have questioned the validity of Stokes’ theorem, one of the most important tools in the theory of electromagnetism, by stating a counterexample. In this comment it is shown that the counterexample is invalid.

New Journal of Physics•May 1, 2025•0 citations

Comment on ‘‘Scalar Aharonov-Bohm experiment with neutrons’’

Murray Peshkin

A Comment on the Letter by B. E. Allman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2409 (1992).Received 26 May 1992DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2017©1992 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Sep 28, 1992•18 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames’ ”

Miguel Montero, Eduardo Martín-Martínez

We show that, contrary to the claims of the preceding Comment [Br\'adler and J\'auregui, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)], our original work [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of part of our work.

arXiv:1108.6074•Physical Review A•Jan 17, 2012•24 citations
In a recent paper [D. H. Kobe, V. C. Aguilera-Navarro, and R. M. Ricotta, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6192 (1992)], Kobe et al. have calculated the expectation values of position and momentum in the Aharonov-Bohm effect and have found that both are shifted by the Aharonov-Bohm potentials. Although these shifts appear to contradict certain ``no-shift'' theorems proved by various authors, we show that this apparent contradiction is the result of different assumptions. Specifically, one of the assumptions on which the no-shift theorems are based does not hold for the parameters used by Kobe et al.; that is, with their parameters, there is no reason to expect the no-shift theorems to hold. On the other hand, with the parameters of actual two-slit experiments, all of the conditions of the no-shift theorems do hold and the no-shift theorems do apply.
The preceding Comment challenged my claim that potentials might be just auxiliary mathematical tools and that they are not necessary for explaining physical phenomena. The Comment did not confront my explanation without the potentials of the Aharonov-Bohm effects that appeared in the original article, but stated that I cannot apply this explanation for seven other examples. In my reply, using my method, I provide explanations of one of the examples, show that two other examples are not relevant, and agree that the remaining examples require further analysis. However, I argue that none of the examples provides robust counterexamples to my claim, similar to the original Aharonov-Bohm setups which were explained in my article, so the Comment does not refute my claim.
We respond to the points raised in the preceding Comment [] on our recent work [], which introduced a theoretical framework for the scalar electric Aharonov-Bohm effect. In this Reply, we take the opportunity to address specific criticisms, by referring to foundational aspects of gauge invariance and time-dependent quantum systems. We explain why the gauging procedure used in the Comment leads to inconsistencies and show that, when applied similarly to the well-established magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, it would yield demonstrably incorrect conclusions. Moreover, we highlight the consistency of our results with canonical treatments of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and we reaffirm the physicality of energy shifts in field-free regions, an effect observed in the magnetic and predicted in the electric Aharonov-Bohm contexts. We believe that this response contributes to a deeper understanding of the subtleties involved in gauge theory and quantum phase phenomena.