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

Theoria

Scientific understanding in the Aharonov‐Bohm effect

Elay Shech

Published May 29, 2022• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract By appealing to resources found in the scientific understanding literature, I identify in what senses idealisations afford understanding in the context of the (magnetic) Aharonov‐Bohm effect. Three types of concepts of understanding are discussed: understanding‐what, which has to do with understanding a phenomenon; understanding‐with, which has to do with understanding a scientific theory; and understanding‐why, which has to do with the reason some phenomenon occurs. Consequently, I outline an account of understanding‐with that is suggested by the historical controversy surrounding the Aharonov‐Bohm effect.

DOI
10.1111/theo.12409

Related papers

Understanding Electromagnetism

Gordon Belot

It is often said that the Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that the vector potential enjoys more ontological significance than we previously realized. But how can a quantum-mechanical effect teach us something about the interpretation of Maxwell's theory—let alone about the ontological structure of the world—when both theories are false? I present a rational reconstruction of the interpretative repercussions of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and suggest some morals for our conception of the interpretative enterprise.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 1998•128 citations

Aharonov–Bohm effect revisited

Gregory Eskin

Aharonov–Bohm effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that attracted the attention of many physicists and mathematicians since the publication of the seminal paper of Aharonov and Bohm [1] in 1959. We consider different types of Aharonov–Bohm effects such as the magnetic AB effect, electric AB effect, combined electromagnetic AB effect, AB effect for the Schrödinger equations with Yang–Mills potentials, and the gravitational analog of AB effect. We shall describe different approaches to prove the AB effect based on the inverse scattering problems, the inverse boundary value problems in the presence of obstacles, spectral asymptotics, and the direct proofs of the AB effect.

arXiv:1504.04784•Reviews in Mathematical Physics•Mar 1, 2015•4 citations

Contrast Analysis on Two Theoretical Explanation of Aharonov-bohm Effect

Chen Lan-li

The paper introduces the Aharonov-Bohm effect in magnetic field with theories of classical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics.It expounds the limitation of classical electrodynamics,the stringency,integrity and scientific predictability of quantum mechanics via comparative analysis.

Journal of Chongqing University of Science and Technology•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

Aptly named Aharonov-Bohm effect has classical analogue, long history

Murray Peshkin

I am an author of the 1961 paper that first called the Aharonov-Bohm effect by that name. 1 1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). The term has since appeared in more than 1000 published papers. However, it has been suggested a few times, most recently by Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves, that the name does not do justice to Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday, who found in 1949 that the motion of electrons can be influenced by magnetic fields confined to regions that the electrons do not enter. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). I argue that the name Aharonov-Bohm effect is appropriate, although for a reason that I did not fully appreciate in 1961.The 1959 Aharonov-Bohm paper profoundly changed the way we think about electromagnetic fields in quantum mechanics. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). The gauge-invariant part of the vector potential was promoted to a real physical field, not just a convenient device for summarizing certain information about the electric and magnetic fields. In the words of C. N. Yang, “The electromagnetic field strength fµv in quantum mechanics underdescribes electromagnetism, as the Bohm-Aharonov effect demonstrates … information about the phase factor exp[ie∮(A⋅dx)/ℏc] for all closed loops correctly describes electromagnetism.” 4 4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5.See also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). A century earlier, James Clerk Maxwell changed the way we think about action at a distance by identifying what we now call the Maxwell fields as real physical things that contain energy and momentum and that enable microscopic conservation laws; they are not just mathematical functions that summarize the necessary information about the past motions of charges. Later those physical fields had to be quantized. Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm found that in quantum mechanics the Maxwell fields in a multiply connected region do not contain all the physics; the vector potential must also be endowed with reality to make sense of the subtler interactions in quantum mechanics. Neither Aharonov and Bohm nor Ehrenberg and Siday were the first to observe that magnetic fields in places where a charged particle’s wave function vanishes may influence the motion of that particle. 5 5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). Paul Dirac, in his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, noted that the electron’s wavefunction must vanish on singular flux lines but said nothing about that raising any question of nonlocality. Fritz London pointed out in the 1930s that the motion of electrons in a superconducting ring depends on an external magnetic flux through the hole in the ring, where the electrons cannot go. He wrote in his 1937 paper, “The most stable state of a ring has no current, unless an external magnetic field is applied.” Like Dirac, he said nothing about a nonlocal action of the magnetic field being surprising or unusual. Of course, London, like Dirac, was focusing on something else.Ehrenberg and Siday were also focusing on something else—electron optics—when they found in 1949 that the motion of an electron can depend on the magnetic field in a region from which the electron is excluded. They chose not to mention that curious phenomenon in the abstract of their paper, although they did explicitly say elsewhere that it was “curious.”None of those earlier authors went on to conclude that such a phenomenon implies that the vector potential has to be seen as a real physical field in quantum mechanics. Only Aharonov and Bohm did that.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5. Google ScholarSee also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) Google ScholarCrossref F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). , Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Aug 1, 2010•1 citation

More variations on Aharonov-Bohm

Peter Andrew Sturrock, T. R. Groves

Having read “The Aharonov-Bohm Effects: Variations on a Subtle Theme” by Herman Batelaan and Akira Tono-mura (Physics Today, September 2009, page 38), we note with some dismay that the principal effect, that related to magnetic flux, continues to be attributed to its re-discoverers rather than to the original discoverers. Batelaan and Tonomura write, “The AB effect was already implicit in the 1926 Schrödinger equation, but it would be another three decades before theorists Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm pointed it out.” 1 1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). That is incorrect: It took only two decades before the effect was pointed out, not by Aharonov and Bohm but by Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond “Rory” Siday. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Aharonov and Bohm cited that prior publication in their second article. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). According to Bohm’s biographer F. David Peat, “After their first paper had been published, Bohm learned that the effect had already been postulated by a maverick physicist called Rory E. Siday.” 4 4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. It seems curious that the biographer should use the term “postulated” rather than “proposed” and that he should comment on Siday’s personality but not on Ehrenberg’s. One of us (Sturrock) knew them both: Raymond was very smart but somewhat brash; Werner was erudite and a model of propriety, who would never have subscribed his name to an article unless he was convinced it was correct.It seems that the main scientific, rather than sociological, reason that the AB proposal was taken more seriously than the ES proposal is that the former was presented in the context of quantum mechanics, the latter in the context of electron optics. Aharonov and Bohm made a rapid transition from quantum mechanics to wave theory. Ehrenberg and Siday made a more detailed transition from geometrical optics to wave theory. For the case of magnetic flux, the two articles presented identical theoretical predictions. Our view is that the ES article was tedious but conceptually sound, whereas the AB article was lively but involved a questionable conceptual leap—namely, a relativistic generalization based on a noncovariant analysis. Soon after Sturrock arrived at Stanford University in 1955, and before the Aharonov-Bohm publication, he asked Leonard Schiff, Stanford’s quantum mechanics expert, whether Schiff found the Ehrenberg-Siday proposal convincing. He did.In the interests of accuracy and of giving credit where credit is due, we think it would be appropriate to use “Ehrenberg-Siday effect” for the case of magnetic interference and to reserve “Aharonov-Bohm effect” for electrical interference.We are indebted to Elliott Bloom, Dieter Kern, Walt Harrison, Peter Hawkes, Garret Moddel, Fabian Pease, Jeff Scargle, and Lenny Susskind for helpful discussions on this matter.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. Google Scholar© 2010 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Apr 1, 2010•6 citations

A fourth way to the Aharonov–Bohm effect

Antigone M. Nounou

Three attempts for an explanation of the Aharonov–Bohm effect The Aharonov–Bohm (A–B) effect is an effect one finds in every quantum field theory book and this is so for a very good reason. The prediction and subsequent experimental verification of the effect have been crucial cornerstones in the history of physics because they suggested that the gauge potential, also known as the A μ field, might be interpreted as a real field, rather than just a mathematical artifact. Hence, ever since its discovery, physicists have taken it for granted that A μ does represent something at least as tangible as any matter field. However, when one examines these arguments more closely, one realizes that attributing the status of a really existent field to the A μ field is not as straightforward as was originally thought. But first things first: we begin with an account of the effect itself, and then attempt to give some explanation for it. The effect The setting for the A–B effect is very similar to the two-slit experiment, with just one difference: immediately beyond the two slits and in between them is a very fine and long solenoid, ideally infinitely long, producing a magnetic field that is confined entirely within the tube of the solenoid.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 4, 2003•22 citations
Abstract By appealing to resources found in the scientific understanding literature, I identify in what senses idealisations afford understanding in the context of the (magnetic) Aharonov‐Bohm effect. Three types of concepts of understanding are discussed: understanding‐what, which has to do with understanding a phenomenon; understanding‐with, which has to do with understanding a scientific theory; and understanding‐why, which has to do with the reason some phenomenon occurs. Consequently, I outline an account of understanding‐with that is suggested by the historical controversy surrounding the Aharonov‐Bohm effect.
It is often said that the Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that the vector potential enjoys more ontological significance than we previously realized. But how can a quantum-mechanical effect teach us something about the interpretation of Maxwell's theory—let alone about the ontological structure of the world—when both theories are false? I present a rational reconstruction of the interpretative repercussions of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and suggest some morals for our conception of the interpretative enterprise.
Aharonov–Bohm effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that attracted the attention of many physicists and mathematicians since the publication of the seminal paper of Aharonov and Bohm [1] in 1959. We consider different types of Aharonov–Bohm effects such as the magnetic AB effect, electric AB effect, combined electromagnetic AB effect, AB effect for the Schrödinger equations with Yang–Mills potentials, and the gravitational analog of AB effect. We shall describe different approaches to prove the AB effect based on the inverse scattering problems, the inverse boundary value problems in the presence of obstacles, spectral asymptotics, and the direct proofs of the AB effect.
I am an author of the 1961 paper that first called the Aharonov-Bohm effect by that name. 1 1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). The term has since appeared in more than 1000 published papers. However, it has been suggested a few times, most recently by Peter Sturrock and Timothy Groves, that the name does not do justice to Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond Siday, who found in 1949 that the motion of electrons can be influenced by magnetic fields confined to regions that the electrons do not enter. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). I argue that the name Aharonov-Bohm effect is appropriate, although for a reason that I did not fully appreciate in 1961.The 1959 Aharonov-Bohm paper profoundly changed the way we think about electromagnetic fields in quantum mechanics. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). The gauge-invariant part of the vector potential was promoted to a real physical field, not just a convenient device for summarizing certain information about the electric and magnetic fields. In the words of C. N. Yang, “The electromagnetic field strength fµv in quantum mechanics underdescribes electromagnetism, as the Bohm-Aharonov effect demonstrates … information about the phase factor exp[ie∮(A⋅dx)/ℏc] for all closed loops correctly describes electromagnetism.” 4 4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5.See also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). A century earlier, James Clerk Maxwell changed the way we think about action at a distance by identifying what we now call the Maxwell fields as real physical things that contain energy and momentum and that enable microscopic conservation laws; they are not just mathematical functions that summarize the necessary information about the past motions of charges. Later those physical fields had to be quantized. Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm found that in quantum mechanics the Maxwell fields in a multiply connected region do not contain all the physics; the vector potential must also be endowed with reality to make sense of the subtler interactions in quantum mechanics. Neither Aharonov and Bohm nor Ehrenberg and Siday were the first to observe that magnetic fields in places where a charged particle’s wave function vanishes may influence the motion of that particle. 5 5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). Paul Dirac, in his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, noted that the electron’s wavefunction must vanish on singular flux lines but said nothing about that raising any question of nonlocality. Fritz London pointed out in the 1930s that the motion of electrons in a superconducting ring depends on an external magnetic flux through the hole in the ring, where the electrons cannot go. He wrote in his 1937 paper, “The most stable state of a ring has no current, unless an external magnetic field is applied.” Like Dirac, he said nothing about a nonlocal action of the magnetic field being surprising or unusual. Of course, London, like Dirac, was focusing on something else.Ehrenberg and Siday were also focusing on something else—electron optics—when they found in 1949 that the motion of an electron can depend on the magnetic field in a region from which the electron is excluded. They chose not to mention that curious phenomenon in the abstract of their paper, although they did explicitly say elsewhere that it was “curious.”None of those earlier authors went on to conclude that such a phenomenon implies that the vector potential has to be seen as a real physical field in quantum mechanics. Only Aharonov and Bohm did that.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. M. Peshkin, I. Talmi, L. J. Tassie, Ann. Phys. 12, 426 (1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. C. N. Yang, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, 1983, S. Kamefuchi et al. , eds., Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (1984), p. 5. Google ScholarSee also T. T. Wu, C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London A 133, 60 (1931) Google ScholarCrossref F. London, Nature 140, 793 (1937). , Google ScholarCrossref© 2010 American Institute of Physics.
Having read “The Aharonov-Bohm Effects: Variations on a Subtle Theme” by Herman Batelaan and Akira Tono-mura (Physics Today, September 2009, page 38), we note with some dismay that the principal effect, that related to magnetic flux, continues to be attributed to its re-discoverers rather than to the original discoverers. Batelaan and Tonomura write, “The AB effect was already implicit in the 1926 Schrödinger equation, but it would be another three decades before theorists Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm pointed it out.” 1 1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). That is incorrect: It took only two decades before the effect was pointed out, not by Aharonov and Bohm but by Werner Ehrenberg and Raymond “Rory” Siday. 2 2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Aharonov and Bohm cited that prior publication in their second article. 3 3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). According to Bohm’s biographer F. David Peat, “After their first paper had been published, Bohm learned that the effect had already been postulated by a maverick physicist called Rory E. Siday.” 4 4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. It seems curious that the biographer should use the term “postulated” rather than “proposed” and that he should comment on Siday’s personality but not on Ehrenberg’s. One of us (Sturrock) knew them both: Raymond was very smart but somewhat brash; Werner was erudite and a model of propriety, who would never have subscribed his name to an article unless he was convinced it was correct.It seems that the main scientific, rather than sociological, reason that the AB proposal was taken more seriously than the ES proposal is that the former was presented in the context of quantum mechanics, the latter in the context of electron optics. Aharonov and Bohm made a rapid transition from quantum mechanics to wave theory. Ehrenberg and Siday made a more detailed transition from geometrical optics to wave theory. For the case of magnetic flux, the two articles presented identical theoretical predictions. Our view is that the ES article was tedious but conceptually sound, whereas the AB article was lively but involved a questionable conceptual leap—namely, a relativistic generalization based on a noncovariant analysis. Soon after Sturrock arrived at Stanford University in 1955, and before the Aharonov-Bohm publication, he asked Leonard Schiff, Stanford’s quantum mechanics expert, whether Schiff found the Ehrenberg-Siday proposal convincing. He did.In the interests of accuracy and of giving credit where credit is due, we think it would be appropriate to use “Ehrenberg-Siday effect” for the case of magnetic interference and to reserve “Aharonov-Bohm effect” for electrical interference.We are indebted to Elliott Bloom, Dieter Kern, Walt Harrison, Peter Hawkes, Garret Moddel, Fabian Pease, Jeff Scargle, and Lenny Susskind for helpful discussions on this matter.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. W. Ehrenberg, R. E. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62, 8 (1949). Google ScholarCrossref3. Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 123, 1511(1961). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. F. D. Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1997), p. Google Scholar© 2010 American Institute of Physics.
Three attempts for an explanation of the Aharonov–Bohm effect The Aharonov–Bohm (A–B) effect is an effect one finds in every quantum field theory book and this is so for a very good reason. The prediction and subsequent experimental verification of the effect have been crucial cornerstones in the history of physics because they suggested that the gauge potential, also known as the A μ field, might be interpreted as a real field, rather than just a mathematical artifact. Hence, ever since its discovery, physicists have taken it for granted that A μ does represent something at least as tangible as any matter field. However, when one examines these arguments more closely, one realizes that attributing the status of a really existent field to the A μ field is not as straightforward as was originally thought. But first things first: we begin with an account of the effect itself, and then attempt to give some explanation for it. The effect The setting for the A–B effect is very similar to the two-slit experiment, with just one difference: immediately beyond the two slits and in between them is a very fine and long solenoid, ideally infinitely long, producing a magnetic field that is confined entirely within the tube of the solenoid.