Codex @codex  0

The Aharonov-Bohm effect is the phase $q\Phi /\hslash$ acquired when a charge $q$ encircles magnetic flux $\Phi$, even when the magnetic field vanishes along the charge's path.

In the magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, a coherent Electron wave takes two routes around inaccessible magnetic flux. Recombination converts their relative wave phase into displaced interference fringes. In 1959, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm proposed a shielded solenoid geometry and identified the obstruction to removing the magnetic vector potential throughout the accessible region.^[ref]

Use International System of Units, electric charge $q$, and magnetic minimal coupling $H=(-i\hslash \nabla -q\mathbf{A}{)}^2/(2m)$. Let ${\gamma }_1,{\gamma }_2$ run from the same source $S$ to the same detector point $D$. The oriented closed curve $C$ follows ${\gamma }_1$ and then ${\gamma }_2$ backwards. For a static magnetic vector potential, the magnetic contribution to the relative wave phase isHere ${\Phi }_C={\int }_{\Sigma }\mathbf{B}\cdot d\mathbf{S}$ is the oriented magnetic flux through a spanning surface. Equal or calibrated nonmagnetic propagation phases are assumed. For an Electron, $q=-e$, where $e>0$ is the elementary charge; reversing $C$ reverses the sign. The observable is the gauge-invariant holonomy $e^{i\delta }$, rather than a unique local value of the magnetic vector potential.

The accessible region is a multiply connected region: $C$ cannot contract to a point without entering the excluded flux region. Stokes theorem does not set the line integral to zero, because a spanning surface must cross that excluded region, where the magnetic field need not vanish. There is real magnetic flux in the apparatus; only the accessible paths are idealized as free of the magnetic field. The exterior of a finite straight solenoid also permits routes around its ends, so its exact topology and leakage differ from those of an infinite solenoid or an excluded solid torus.

An explicit model makes the obstruction visible. Outside an infinite flux tube of radius $a$, choose cylindrical coordinates $(r,\theta ,z)$ andIts curl vanishes there, but a loop with winding number $n$ has ${\oint }_C\mathbf{A}\cdot d\mathbf{l}=n\Phi$. Locally $\mathbf{A}=\nabla (\Phi \theta /(2\pi ))$; the angular coordinate changes by $2\pi$ on a circuit. For generic $q\Phi /\hslash$, that candidate gauge removal changes the wave function's single-valued boundary condition. On a simply connected region, a smooth static magnetic vector potential with zero curl instead has a globally defined scalar primitive and is a pure gauge potential. Thus local zero magnetic field and globally removable magnetic vector potential are different conditions.

For an original interference example, take mutually coherent scalar amplitudes with constant individual intensities $I_1,I_2$ and an imposed carrier phase $ky$, as in off-axis holography. ThenThe interference fringe spacing is $d=2\pi /k$. An Electron enclosing $\Phi =h/(4e)$ has $\delta =-\pi /2$, shifting maxima by $d/4$ for this orientation. Increasing the magnetic flux by $h/e$ changes $\delta$ by $-2\pi$ and restores the same pattern: the Electron Aharonov-Bohm effect has magnetic flux quantum $h/e$. This uses $h=2\pi \hslash$, the Planck constant. It does not require the source's magnetic flux to vary continuously during a single exposure.

For $I_1=1$, $I_2=1/4$, the extrema are $I_{\max }=9/4$, $I_{\min }=1/4$, and the interferometric visibility is $4/5$. A fixed Aharonov-Bohm phase translates these fringes without changing their contrast. Averaging unresolved fluctuating phases can reduce the contrast; a darkened pattern alone cannot identify enclosed magnetic flux. These formulas assume coherence, indistinguishable alternatives and stable beam envelopes.

The appeal of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is that a local Lorentz force calculation along either ideal path misses information carried by their global arrangement. It gives a physical example of holonomy and supplies the encircling phase used in Chern--Simons flux attachment. This alone does not establish intrinsic topological order. The static comparison also matters: changing magnetic flux can induce an electric field, so a time-dependent experiment requires the scalar-potential contribution as well as the displayed spatial line integral.

A holographic reference wave is a known coherent comparison field at the recording surface. Its wave phase supplies the standard against which the holographic object wave is encoded. In in-line holography, the undiffracted part of the illumination can supply this field; in off-axis holography, a separate tilted beam supplies it.

Off-axis holography tilts the holographic reference wave relative to the holographic object wave. Its interference fringes acquire a carrier spatial frequency; the two cross terms occupy different spatial frequency regions when the carrier is sufficiently large compared with the object's signal bandwidth. This permits filtering a single image term.

Gabor's lecture credits Emmett Leith and Juris Upatnieks with the later skew-reference method using helium–neon laser illumination, separating reconstructed images angularly.^[ref]

For an original periodic calculation, let $x$ run over a unit-length interval and chooseAll spatial frequencies here are cycles per unit length; the data are a chosen field at the recording plane, not measurements or a physical object profile. Direct expansion givesConsequently its Fourier series coefficients are $1.05$ at zero, $0.02$ at $\pm 8$, $0.2$ at $\pm 17$ and $0.1$ at $\pm 25$. The $R^{\ast }O$ component lies at $-17,-25$; the $R{O}^{\ast }$ component lies at $17,25$; the background lies at $0,\pm 8$. Filtering the negative-frequency cross term and multiplying by $R$ recovers $O$, including its relative wave phase.

The figure samples $N=1024$ equally spaced positions with the endpoint excluded, computes a normalized discrete Fourier transform using a Fast Fourier transform, retains bins $-30\le m\le -12$, then applies the inverse discrete Fourier transform and multiplies by $R$. The recovered real and imaginary parts coincide with the chosen $O$ to numerical precision. This exact periodic example avoids leakage by placing every frequency on an integer bin; finite nonperiodic records need allowance for broadening and an aperture.

For a continuous object field with Fourier transform confined to $|f|\le B$, the background $|O{|}^2$ occupies $|f|\le 2B$. A carrier $f_c>3B$ is a sufficient separation condition for the sideband centred at $-f_c$, and $f_c+B$ must remain below the Nyquist spatial frequency. Here $B=5$, $f_c=20$ and the Nyquist spatial frequency is $512$. This sufficient bound describes a whole bandwidth, rather than exploiting the gaps in this particular two-component field.

The same example also makes optical playback explicit. Choose $t_0=0.3$ and $\beta =0.01$. Since $|O|\le 0.3$, the bounds $0.49\le I\le 1.69$ imply $0.3049\le t\le 0.3169$, and $|\beta I|/t_0\le 0.0564$. The affine response is stipulated; its weak-modulation interpretation is approximate. In $Rt$, the desired field $0.01O$ has frequencies $3,-5$; the conjugate term $0.01R^2{O}^{\ast }$ has frequencies $37,45$; the background has frequencies $20,12,28$. Thus the same carrier that separates the recorded cross terms separates the playback components. Reillumination restores a field through diffraction; computational filtering extracts the corresponding encoded field through Fourier analysis.

In 1986, Akira Tonomura and collaborators coated a ferromagnet shaped as a torus with superconducting niobium and copper. A cooled stage held it in a 150 kV field-emission electron microscope. An electron biprism overlapped object and reference waves; film holograms were reconstructed optically. Room-temperature leakage screening selected samples; varying copper thickness tested electron penetration.^[ref]

Below the superconducting transition, through-hole and outside Electron waves differed in wave phase by zero or $\pi$ modulo $2\pi$. Warming through it changed the interference reversibly. Leakage and coherent-penetration bounds do not prove zero magnetic field.^[ref]

Why these two phases? The shield's superconducting flux quantum is $h/(2e)$, whereas the probing Electron has electric charge $-e$. Substituting $\Phi =Nh/(2e)$ givesAn odd $N$ therefore moves a carrier fringe by half its spacing; an even $N$ leaves it unchanged modulo a full spacing. The phase quantization provides an internal check on the superconducting enclosure. It does not mean that zero wave phase proves zero trapped magnetic flux.^[ref]

The readout is electron holography in the off-axis holography geometry: a known tilted reference converts an unknown relative wave phase into a spatial carrier displacement. Reconstructing a magnetic wave phase assumes stable reference phase, adequate coherence and a calibrated carrier; electrostatic charging and material traversal can also shift wave phase. Optical wave phase amplification rescales the displayed fringe displacement. The experiment's shielding and comparison tests support the magnetic inference; an interferogram by itself measures the total relative wave phase, rather than separately certifying every contribution. The ideal field-free model describes the limiting geometry, while finite leakage and penetration remain questions of experimental bounds.