Quantum physics demands some radical revision of our fundamental beliefs about physical reality. We know that because there are certain verified physical phenomena-two-slit interference, the disappearance of interference upon monitoring, violations of Bell's inequality-that have no classical analogs. But the exact nature of that revision has been under dispute since the foundation of quantum theory. I offer a method of clarifying what the commitments of a clearly formulated physical theory are, and apply it to a discussion of some options available to account for another non-classical phenomenon: the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
Quantum physics demands some radical revision of our fundamental beliefs about physical reality. We know that because there are certain verified physical phenomena-two-slit interference, the disappearance of interference upon monitoring, violations of Bell's inequality-that have no classical analogs. But the exact nature of that revision has been under dispute since the foundation of quantum theory. I offer a method of clarifying what the commitments of a clearly formulated physical theory are, and apply it to a discussion of some options available to account for another non-classical phenomenon: the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
It is frequently stated that the electromagnetic vector potential acquires a fundamental role in quantum physics, whereas classically it only represents a convenient, but by no means necessary, way of representing the electromagnetic field. Here we argue that this is a historical accident due to the fact that the electromagnetic field was discovered before photons, while the electron itself was discovered first as a particle, before it became clear that it must also be treated as a wave and therefore as an excitation of the underlying electron field. We illustrate the fact that the vector potential ought to play a fundamental role classically using the Aharonov-Bohm effect. This effect is considered as the strongest argument for the role the vector potential plays in quantum physics, however, here we offer a fully classical account of it. This is a consequence of the fact that any account, be it classical or quantum, must involve the vector potential in order to preserve the local nature of the Aharonov-Bohm (as well as all the other) phases.
The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, wherein an electron acquires a phase shift in a field-free region due to electromagnetic potentials, poses a profound challenge to the ontology of quantum mechanics and gauge theories. This paper demonstrates that gauge-invariant explanations, which attribute the phase to measurable quantities, rely on nonlocal and discontinuous mechanism and fail to account for its continuous accumulation along the electron's path—a process evident in the generalized AB effect, where a time-varying magnetic flux induces a phase that builds gradually over time, as predicted by quantum mechanics. Through a new analysis spanning quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, I argue that the electromagnetic potentials Aμ, fixed in the Lorenz gauge, emerge as the fundamental physical reality, offering a local, relativistically consistent account of the phase’s generation. This exclusion of gauge-invariant paradigms reverberates across gauge theories: it redefines the Higgs mechanism, favoring dynamic potentials over static invariants, and extends to general relativity, where gravitational potentials gμν may anchor spacetime’s substantival reality via a gravitational AB effect. By unraveling the AB phase’s continuous generation—locally mediated by potentials—this study not only addresses a long-standing conundrum but also bridges electromagnetic, gravitational, and Yang-Mills frameworks, offering a unified potential-centric perspective with novel implications for physics and philosophy.
Gennaro Auletta University of Cassino gennaro.auletta@gmail.com Classically, the main ontological attempts at understanding quantum mechanics focus on the corpuscular behavior of these systems and especially on detection events, since these are the most classical phenomena that we have in such a context (indeed, they also require the presence of a classical apparatus). The main trend has been to consider wave-like aspects as deprived of ontological substrate and as reflecting rather the mathematical abstract formalism of the theory. The few attempts that have been done in order to assign some form of ontological reference to wave-like aspects have tried to interpreted this in terms of classical waves and have been disproved across the last 30 years (see Auletta & Tarozzi, 2004b; Auletta & Torcal, 2011). It is perhaps time to try a different approach, by renouncing any attempt at a classical ontology and by taking seriously into account the non-local aspects of the theory (which are mostly associated with wave-like phenomena). When we consider things in this perspective, we shall discover that all non-local phenomena in quantum mechanics, although different, have something in common: they all rely on non-local interdependencies among possible events or measurement outcomes (see Auletta, 2011). This is true for all interference phenomena for isolated systems, this is true for entangled systems, this is true for the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and so on. What is sad is that we do not have until now a name for denoting this mysterious reality. It is indeed mysterious, since we cannot directly measure it. There is in fact no way to have a direct experimental evidence of it. In most cases we can only reconstruct the interference profile after many experimental runs, a circumstance that has led many scientists to discard any ontological attribution to wave-like phenomena. However, a proposed
The seminal paper of Aharonov and Bohm [Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)]10.1103/PhysRev.115.485 is at the origin of a very extensive literature in some of the more fundamental issues in physics. They claimed that electromagnetic fields can act at a distance on charged particles even if they are identically zero in the region of space where the particles propagate, that the fundamental electromagnetic quantities in quantum physics are not only the electromagnetic fields but also the circulations of the electromagnetic potentials; what gives them a real physical significance. They proposed two experiments to verify their theoretical conclusions. The magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, where an electron is influenced by a magnetic field that is zero in the region of space accessible to the electron, and the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect where an electron is affected by a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in the region where the electron is propagating, i.e., such that the electric field vanishes along its trajectory. The Aharonov-Bohm effects imply such a strong departure from the physical intuition coming from classical physics that it is no wonder that they remain a highly controversial issue after more than fifty years, in spite of the fact that they are discussed in most of the text books in quantum mechanics. The magnetic case has been studied extensively. The experimental issues were settled by the remarkable experiments of Tonomura et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1443 (1982); Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 792 (1986)] with toroidal magnets, that gave a strong evidence of the existence of the effect, and by the recent experiment of Caprez et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210401 (2007)]10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.210401 that shows that the results of the Tonomura et al. experiments cannot be explained by the action of a force. The theoretical issues were settled by Ballesteros and Weder [Commun. Math. Phys. 285, 345 (2009)10.1007/s00220-008-0579-1; J. Math. Phys. 50, 122108 (2009)10.1063/1.3266176; Commun. Math. Phys. 303, 175 (2011)]10.1007/s00220-010-1166-9 who rigorously proved that quantum mechanics predicts the experimental results of Tonomura et al. and of Caprez et al. The electric Aharonov-Bohm effect has been much less studied. Actually, its existence, that has not been confirmed experimentally, is a very controversial issue. In their 1959 paper Aharonov and Bohm proposed an ansatz for the solution to the Schrödinger equation in regions where there is a time-dependent electric potential that is constant in space. It consists in multiplying the free evolution by a phase given by the integral in time of the potential. The validity of this ansatz predicts interference fringes between parts of a coherent electron beam that are subjected to different potentials. In this paper we prove that the exact solution to the Schrödinger equation is given by the Aharonov-Bohm ansatz up to an error bound in norm that is uniform in time and that decays as a constant divided by the velocity. Our results give, for the first time, a rigorous proof that quantum mechanics predicts the existence of the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect, under conditions that we provide. We hope that our results will stimulate the experimental research on the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect.
Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.