The paper shows that the Darwin-Breit form of electromagnetic interaction disproves the Aharonov-Bohm assertion about the fundamental meaning of the electromagnetic potentials in quantum theory. A specific analysis of the Aharonov-Bohm electric and magnetic effects substantiates this result.
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.
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
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.
We analyse the physical meaning of the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) phase based on its representation through electromagnetic (EM) potentials as a sum of four components, which, in addition to the known electric and magnetic phase components, contains two more terms recently disclosed by our team in the analysis of quantum phase effects for dipoles and charges, and which we named the complementary electric AB phase and the complementary magnetic AB phase. Using the complete expression for the AB phase, we reveal that the phase component, explicitly depending on time, is determined by the interactional electric energy, while the phase component, explicitly depending on the velocity of charge, is determined by the interactional EM momentum for an isolated system ‘source of EM field and charge’. These findings shed new light on the origin of the AB phase and, in particular, allow us to generalize the de Broglie relationship and the Heisenberg uncertainty relations for a charged particle in an EM field.
Abstract We focus on new expressions for the Aharonov–Bohm (AB) phase proposed recently by C. Marletto and V. Vedral (Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040401 (2020)) and by our team (A. L. Kholmetskii et al., Ann. Phys., 434, 168627 (2021)). We emphasize the mismatch between the standard expression for the electric component of the AB phase and the expression by Marletto and Vedral for this component, which, as we show, has fundamental roots and indicates the need to use different expressions for the Hamiltonian of the radiative component and bound component of the electromagnetic (EM) field. We further show that the corrected expression for the AB phase of Marletto and Vedral and our expression for the AB phase do not coincide with its standard representation through the potentials of EM field (Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115 (1959) 485) and contain additional terms, which straightforwardly allow to re-express the AB phase via electric and magnetic fields instead of scalar and vector potentials. The recognition of the field-dependent origin of the AB effect also requires to re-express the Hamiltonian of a charged particle through the EM field, which we show can be done in the only possible way. We discuss the physical meaning of the AB effect with the primary role of the EM field and also discuss some general quantum mechanical implications.