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 General

Aharonov-Bohm beam deflection: Shelankov's formula, exact solution, asymptotics and an optical analogue

Michael Berry

Published Jul 20, 1999• 32 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Using a paraxial analysis, Shelankov (1998 Europhys. Lett. 43 623) has shown that charged particles in a beam of small angular width 1/ w , aimed at a magnetic flux line with quantum flux , are deflected through an angle D proportional to sin(2 )/ w , vanishing in the classical limit and also vanishing if the incident beam has zero intensity at the flux line. These properties are confirmed by numerical calculations based on an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation, and the paraxial wavefunction is obtained as an asymptotic approximation for large w . Paraxial theory suggests that the same deflection will occur for a light beam reflected by a mirror containing a step of height . A theory of this optical phenomenon, based on an exact solution (for which D is not periodic in ), shows that convergence to the paraxial D is fast for <<1, and slow for near ½.

DOI
10.1088/0305-4470/32/30/309

Related papers

Magnetic force exerted by the Aharonov-Bohm line

Andrei L. Shelankov

The controversial question of the transverse force exerted by the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) magnetic-flux line is reconsidered with the help of a new paraxial solution to the AB-scattering problem. It is shown that despite the left-right symmetry in the AB scattering cross-section, a beam of finite width is deflected by the AB-line as if by the “Lorentz” force. The asymmetry and the magnetic force originate from the quantum interference in the forward direction within the angular size of the incident wave.

arXiv:cond-mat/9809319•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Sep 15, 1998•82 citations

Force and impulse from an Aharonov-Bohm flux line

Jonathan P. Keating, Jonathan M. Robbins

We calculate the force operator for a charged particle in the field of an Aharonov-Bohm flux line. Formally this is the Lorentz force, with the magnetic field operator modified to include quantum corrections due to anomalous commutation relations. For stationary states, the magnitude of the force is proportional to the product of the wavenumber k with the amplitudes of the `pinioned' components, the two angular momentum components whose azimuthal quantum numbers are closest to the flux parameter α. The direction of the force depends on the relative phase of the pinioned components. For paraxial beams, the transverse component of our expression gives an exact version of Shelankov's formula (Shelankov A 1998 Europhys. Lett. 43 623-8), while the longitudinal component gives the force along the beam. Nonstationary states are treated by integrating the force operator in time to obtain the impulse operator. Expectation values of the impulse are calculated for two kinds of wavepacket. For slow wavepackets, which spread faster than they move, the impulse is inversely proportional to the distance from the flux line. For fast wavepackets, which spread only negligibly before their closest approach to the flux line, the impulse is proportional to the probability density transverse to the incident direction evaluated at the flux line. In this case, the transverse component of the impulse gives a wavepacket analogue of Shelankov's formula. The direction of the impulse for both kinds of wavepacket is flux dependent. We give two derivations of the force and impulse operators, the first a simple derivation based on formal arguments, and the second a rigorous calculation of wavepacket expectation values. We also show that the same expressions for the force and impulse are obtained if the flux line is enclosed in an impenetrable cylinder, or distributed uniformly over a flux cylinder, in the limit that the radius of the cylinder goes to zero.

arXiv:cond-mat/0212146•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jan 18, 2001•14 citations

Fizeau’s experiment and the Aharonov–Bohm effect

Richard J. Cook, H. Fearn, Peter W. Milonni

The electromagnetic wave equations in a moving medium may be approximated by a form similar to that of the Schrödinger equation for a particle in an electromagnetic field, with the velocity v of the medium and the vorticity ∇×v playing the roles of the vector potential and magnetic field, re- spectively. A purely classical optical analogue of the Aharonov–Bohm effect follows by consider- ation of the interference pattern produced by two beams, each of which propagates in a region with zero vorticity, but such that the flux of the vorticity through the closed loop defined by the optical paths does not vanish. Fizeau’s experiment (1851) on the velocity of light in moving media may be regarded as an example of such a situation.

American Journal of Physics•Aug 1, 1995•44 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

Concerning the direction of the Aharonov–Bohm deflection

Timothy H. Boyer

Abstract The interaction of a solenoid with a passing charged particle can be treated within classical or quantum physics. If charged particles pass around both sides of a solenoid, there is an experimentally-observed Aharonov–Bohm deflection of the double-slit particle interference pattern between charges passing on opposite sides. Such a deflection can be obtained by a classical force calculation. Although the magnitude of the angular deflection agrees between the classical force calculation and the quantum topological theory, the direction of the predicted deflection is opposite. Here we point out the simple basis for the direction of the deflection based upon classical electrodynamics and based upon quantum theory. Also, we mention some deflection analogs, both the electrostatic deflection of the particle interference pattern and the optical analog of the classical calculation. The deflection direction involves an experimental question which is addressed rarely if ever. In the deflection direction, there is a direct experimental confrontation connected with the long-standing controversy involving the interpretation of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift.

arXiv:2306.02112•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 10, 2023•3 citations

Aharonov-Bohm and Coulomb Scattering Near the Forward Direction

Charles M. Sommerfield, Hisakazu Minakata

The exact wave functions that describe scattering of a charged particle by a confined magnetic field (Aharonov-Bohm effect) and by a Coulomb field are analyzed. It is well known that the usual procedure of finding asymptotic forms of these functions which admit a separation into a superposition of an incident plane wave and a circular or spherical scattered wave is problematic near the forward direction. It thus appears to be impossible to express the conservation of probability by means of an optical theorem of the usual kind. Both the total cross section and the forward scattering amplitude appear to be infinite. To address these difficulties we find a new representation for the asymptotic form of the Aharonov-Bohm wave function that is valid for all angles. Rather than try to define a cross section at forward angles, however, we work instead with the probability current and find that it is quite well behaved. The same is true for Coulomb scattering. We trace the usual difficulties to a nonuniformity of limits.

arXiv:hep-th/0006092•Jun 13, 2000•1 citation
Using a paraxial analysis, Shelankov (1998 Europhys. Lett. 43 623) has shown that charged particles in a beam of small angular width 1/ w , aimed at a magnetic flux line with quantum flux , are deflected through an angle D proportional to sin(2 )/ w , vanishing in the classical limit and also vanishing if the incident beam has zero intensity at the flux line. These properties are confirmed by numerical calculations based on an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation, and the paraxial wavefunction is obtained as an asymptotic approximation for large w . Paraxial theory suggests that the same deflection will occur for a light beam reflected by a mirror containing a step of height . A theory of this optical phenomenon, based on an exact solution (for which D is not periodic in ), shows that convergence to the paraxial D is fast for <<1, and slow for near ½.
The controversial question of the transverse force exerted by the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) magnetic-flux line is reconsidered with the help of a new paraxial solution to the AB-scattering problem. It is shown that despite the left-right symmetry in the AB scattering cross-section, a beam of finite width is deflected by the AB-line as if by the “Lorentz” force. The asymmetry and the magnetic force originate from the quantum interference in the forward direction within the angular size of the incident wave.
We calculate the force operator for a charged particle in the field of an Aharonov-Bohm flux line. Formally this is the Lorentz force, with the magnetic field operator modified to include quantum corrections due to anomalous commutation relations. For stationary states, the magnitude of the force is proportional to the product of the wavenumber k with the amplitudes of the `pinioned' components, the two angular momentum components whose azimuthal quantum numbers are closest to the flux parameter α. The direction of the force depends on the relative phase of the pinioned components. For paraxial beams, the transverse component of our expression gives an exact version of Shelankov's formula (Shelankov A 1998 Europhys. Lett. 43 623-8), while the longitudinal component gives the force along the beam. Nonstationary states are treated by integrating the force operator in time to obtain the impulse operator. Expectation values of the impulse are calculated for two kinds of wavepacket. For slow wavepackets, which spread faster than they move, the impulse is inversely proportional to the distance from the flux line. For fast wavepackets, which spread only negligibly before their closest approach to the flux line, the impulse is proportional to the probability density transverse to the incident direction evaluated at the flux line. In this case, the transverse component of the impulse gives a wavepacket analogue of Shelankov's formula. The direction of the impulse for both kinds of wavepacket is flux dependent. We give two derivations of the force and impulse operators, the first a simple derivation based on formal arguments, and the second a rigorous calculation of wavepacket expectation values. We also show that the same expressions for the force and impulse are obtained if the flux line is enclosed in an impenetrable cylinder, or distributed uniformly over a flux cylinder, in the limit that the radius of the cylinder goes to zero.
The electromagnetic wave equations in a moving medium may be approximated by a form similar to that of the Schrödinger equation for a particle in an electromagnetic field, with the velocity v of the medium and the vorticity ∇×v playing the roles of the vector potential and magnetic field, re- spectively. A purely classical optical analogue of the Aharonov–Bohm effect follows by consider- ation of the interference pattern produced by two beams, each of which propagates in a region with zero vorticity, but such that the flux of the vorticity through the closed loop defined by the optical paths does not vanish. Fizeau’s experiment (1851) on the velocity of light in moving media may be regarded as an example of such a situation.
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.
Abstract The interaction of a solenoid with a passing charged particle can be treated within classical or quantum physics. If charged particles pass around both sides of a solenoid, there is an experimentally-observed Aharonov–Bohm deflection of the double-slit particle interference pattern between charges passing on opposite sides. Such a deflection can be obtained by a classical force calculation. Although the magnitude of the angular deflection agrees between the classical force calculation and the quantum topological theory, the direction of the predicted deflection is opposite. Here we point out the simple basis for the direction of the deflection based upon classical electrodynamics and based upon quantum theory. Also, we mention some deflection analogs, both the electrostatic deflection of the particle interference pattern and the optical analog of the classical calculation. The deflection direction involves an experimental question which is addressed rarely if ever. In the deflection direction, there is a direct experimental confrontation connected with the long-standing controversy involving the interpretation of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift.
The exact wave functions that describe scattering of a charged particle by a confined magnetic field (Aharonov-Bohm effect) and by a Coulomb field are analyzed. It is well known that the usual procedure of finding asymptotic forms of these functions which admit a separation into a superposition of an incident plane wave and a circular or spherical scattered wave is problematic near the forward direction. It thus appears to be impossible to express the conservation of probability by means of an optical theorem of the usual kind. Both the total cross section and the forward scattering amplitude appear to be infinite. To address these difficulties we find a new representation for the asymptotic form of the Aharonov-Bohm wave function that is valid for all angles. Rather than try to define a cross section at forward angles, however, we work instead with the probability current and find that it is quite well behaved. The same is true for Coulomb scattering. We trace the usual difficulties to a nonuniformity of limits.