I Gauge in the Aharonov Bohm effect

KDPhysics
Messages
73
Reaction score
24
TL;DR Summary
Why doesn't gauge transforming the vector potential for a solenoid affect the energy levels of a particle orbiting it a fixed radius?
In p.385 of Griffiths QM the vector potential ##\textbf{A} = \frac{\Phi}{2\pi r}\hat{\phi}## is chosen for the region outside a long solenoid. However, couldn't we also have chosen a vector potential that is a multiple of this, namely ##\textbf{A} = \alpha \frac{\Phi}{2\pi r} \hat{\phi}## where ##\alpha## is some constant? The two are related by a gauge transformation:
$$\alpha\frac{\Phi}{2\pi r}\hat{\phi} = \frac{\Phi}{2\pi r} \hat{\phi}+\nabla\bigg((\alpha-1)\frac{\Phi}{2\pi}\phi\bigg)$$
When I solve the TISE with this new gauge I get that the energy levels are:
$$E_n = \frac{\hbar^2}{2mb^2}\bigg(n-\alpha \frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0}\bigg)^2$$
which is different from what Griffiths even if the magnetic flux is quantized. How is it possible that the ground state depends on the gauge choice?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
To study a gauge transformation one must consider the vector potential everywhere, i.e. not only outside of the solenoid, but also inside of it. Since the magnetic field does not vanish in the interior, it can be shown that a multiplication by ##\alpha## is not really a gauge transformation in the interior. Hence your transformation is not really a gauge transformation. But nice try!
 
Physically observable quantities are always gauge invariant. Whatever you calculate are not the energy eigenvalues of a gauge-invariant Hamiltonian. In the AB effect what's observable is a relative phase, but this phase is not gauge dependent but is given by the magnetic flux inside the solenoid, which is a gauge-invariant quantity. The gauge transformation must also fulfill the boundary conditions at the boundary of the solenoid.

A very concise treatment of gauge invariance in quantum mechanics can be found in the textbook by Cohen-Tannoudji et al.

Very illuminating is also

K.-H. Yang, Gauge-invariant interpretations of quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. (NY) 101, 62 (1976)
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(76)90275-X

K.-H. Yang, Physical interpretation of classical gauge transformations, Ann. Phys. (NY) 101, 97 (1976)
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(76)90276-1
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, PeterDonis and KDPhysics
Thanks for the answers, very enlightening!
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and vanhees71
Note also that energy spectrum is gauge invariant. See e.g. Ballentine's book, Eq. (11.23).
 
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Back
Top