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 Mathematical Physics

Aharonov–Bohm scattering and the velocity operator

Walter C. Henneberger

Published Jan 1, 1981• 33 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is shown that the existence of Aharonov–Bohm scattering depends upon the criteria used for establishing the stationary states. If one applies Pauli’s criterion, there is no scattering. It is shown further that applying the usual criteria that the wave functions be continuous and single valued, as was done by Aharonov and Bohm, leads to stationary state wave functions which, with two exceptions, are eigenstates of the acceleration operator corresponding to eigenvalue zero. The acceleration operator is undefined for the remaining two states. Thus, only the eigenfunctions satisfying the Pauli criterion lead to well-defined, sensible physics.

DOI
10.1063/1.524741

Related papers

Particule de spin-1 dans un potentiel d’Aharonov–Bohm

Abdelmalek Boumali

In this article we solved the problem of the relativistic spin-1 particle in the presence of the Aharonov–Bohm potential in two and three dimensions, while using the Duffin–Kemmer–Petiau equation. The wave functions as well as the energy spectrum, in both cases, have been obtained. The validity of the Pauli criterion in the Aharonov–Bohm effect is well discussed.

Canadian Journal of Physics•Dec 1, 2007•28 citations

Aharonov–Bohm scattering: The role of the incident wave

Seiji Sakoda, Minoru Omote

The scattering problem under the influence of the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) potential is reconsidered. By solving the Lippmann–Schwinger (LS) equation we obtain the wave function of the scattering state in this system. In spite of working with a plane wave as an incident wave we obtain the same wave function as was given by Aharonov and Bohm. Another method to solve the scattering problem is given by making use of a modified version of Gordon’s idea, which was invented to consider the scattering by the Coulomb potential. These two methods give the same result, which guarantees the validity of taking an incident plane wave as usual to make an analysis of this scattering problem. The scattering problem by a solenoid of finite radius is also discussed, and we find that the vector potential of the solenoid affects the charged particles, even when the magnitude of the flux is an odd integer as well as a noninteger. It is shown that the unitarity of the S matrix holds provided that a plane wave is taken to be an incident one.

arXiv:hep-th/9603185•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Feb 1, 1997•17 citations

Does the return flux result in the Aharonov-Bohm scattering amplitude?

Jun Liang

Introducing a new Aharonov-Bohm-type scattering model, the ambiguity of the incoming wave function is avoided and the single-valued wave function is uniquely determined by proper boundary conditions. In our model, however, the return flux plays an important role in deriving the Aharonov-Bohm scattering amplitude.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Aug 15, 1985•9 citations

On the delta function normalization of the wave functions of the aharonov-bohm scattering of a dirac particle

Vanilse S. Araujo, Francisco Antônio Bezerra Coutinho, J. Fernando Perez

In a previous paper, we found the most general boundary conditions for the Aharonov -Bohm scattering of a Dirac particle. We found the resulting wave functions but we did not worry about delta normalizing them. As is well know, in practice, it is not easy to evaluate the diverging integrals occurring in the process. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate those integrals and present the resulting delta normalized eigenfunctions.

Brazilian Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 2002•1 citation

Some aspects of the Aharonov-Bohm effect

Walter C. Henneberger

It is shown that the Aharonov-Bohm scattering cross section diverges. This presents a problem since the range of the scattering force (Lorentz force) is finite. The cross section found by Aharonov and Bohm (AB) results whether one takes an incident wave function corresponding to particles moving in the incident direction, as was done by AB, or just takes the incident state to be a plane wave. The mechanism by which a localized force results in an infinite cross section is not clear. This is an apparent contradiction to recent proofs that electrodynamics is a local theory.

Physical Review A•Oct 1, 1980•38 citations

Simple applications

Peter Holland

Stationary states General properties We shall consider first some general characteristics of the ‘stationary states’. These are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian operator: The requirement that ψ satisfies the Schrödinger equation fixes its time dependence: Notice that (4.1.2) can only be a solution if the external potential V is independent of the time: V = V ( x ). The initial function ψ 0 is not arbitrary but must satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation (4.1.1). Writing ψ = R e iS /ħ one thus has The following deductions may be made from (4.1.3): ( a ) The probability density is independent of the time: |ψ| 2 = R 2 0 ( X ). ( b ) The quantum potential Q = (- ħ2/2 mR 0 )∇ 2 R 0 is time-independent. Therefore so is the total effective potential: ( c ) The velocity field v = (l/ m )∇ S 0 is independent of time and hence the trajectories, found by solving m = v ( x )| x = x ( t ) , are solutions of Moreover, ψ 0 ( x ) is often a real function for many bound state problems of interest (although not for scattering states) which implies that the velocity is zero. The particle is at rest where one would classically expect it to move since the quantum force (- ∇ Q ) cancels the classical force (- ∇ K ). ( d ) The energy of all particles in the ensemble, -∂ S /∂ t , is a constant of the motion and equal to the energy eigenvalue: with (4.1.4), we have an example of the conservation of energy (cf. §3.9.3). ( e ) The total field energy is conserved: 〈Ĥ〉 = E . […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 13, 1993•0 citations
It is shown that the existence of Aharonov–Bohm scattering depends upon the criteria used for establishing the stationary states. If one applies Pauli’s criterion, there is no scattering. It is shown further that applying the usual criteria that the wave functions be continuous and single valued, as was done by Aharonov and Bohm, leads to stationary state wave functions which, with two exceptions, are eigenstates of the acceleration operator corresponding to eigenvalue zero. The acceleration operator is undefined for the remaining two states. Thus, only the eigenfunctions satisfying the Pauli criterion lead to well-defined, sensible physics.
The scattering problem under the influence of the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) potential is reconsidered. By solving the Lippmann–Schwinger (LS) equation we obtain the wave function of the scattering state in this system. In spite of working with a plane wave as an incident wave we obtain the same wave function as was given by Aharonov and Bohm. Another method to solve the scattering problem is given by making use of a modified version of Gordon’s idea, which was invented to consider the scattering by the Coulomb potential. These two methods give the same result, which guarantees the validity of taking an incident plane wave as usual to make an analysis of this scattering problem. The scattering problem by a solenoid of finite radius is also discussed, and we find that the vector potential of the solenoid affects the charged particles, even when the magnitude of the flux is an odd integer as well as a noninteger. It is shown that the unitarity of the S matrix holds provided that a plane wave is taken to be an incident one.
It is shown that the Aharonov-Bohm scattering cross section diverges. This presents a problem since the range of the scattering force (Lorentz force) is finite. The cross section found by Aharonov and Bohm (AB) results whether one takes an incident wave function corresponding to particles moving in the incident direction, as was done by AB, or just takes the incident state to be a plane wave. The mechanism by which a localized force results in an infinite cross section is not clear. This is an apparent contradiction to recent proofs that electrodynamics is a local theory.
Stationary states General properties We shall consider first some general characteristics of the ‘stationary states’. These are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian operator: The requirement that ψ satisfies the Schrödinger equation fixes its time dependence: Notice that (4.1.2) can only be a solution if the external potential V is independent of the time: V = V ( x ). The initial function ψ 0 is not arbitrary but must satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation (4.1.1). Writing ψ = R e iS /ħ one thus has The following deductions may be made from (4.1.3): ( a ) The probability density is independent of the time: |ψ| 2 = R 2 0 ( X ). ( b ) The quantum potential Q = (- ħ2/2 mR 0 )∇ 2 R 0 is time-independent. Therefore so is the total effective potential: ( c ) The velocity field v = (l/ m )∇ S 0 is independent of time and hence the trajectories, found by solving m = v ( x )| x = x ( t ) , are solutions of Moreover, ψ 0 ( x ) is often a real function for many bound state problems of interest (although not for scattering states) which implies that the velocity is zero. The particle is at rest where one would classically expect it to move since the quantum force (- ∇ Q ) cancels the classical force (- ∇ K ). ( d ) The energy of all particles in the ensemble, -∂ S /∂ t , is a constant of the motion and equal to the energy eigenvalue: with (4.1.4), we have an example of the conservation of energy (cf. §3.9.3). ( e ) The total field energy is conserved: 〈Ĥ〉 = E . […]