Topology of Aharonov Bohm Effect - Lewis Ryder's QFT book.

  • Thread starter Thread starter maverick280857
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Qft Topology
maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi,

I am reading through Section 3.4 of Lewis Ryder's QFT book, where he makes the statement,

The configuration space of the Bohm-Aharonov experiment is the plane \mathbb{R}^2 with a hole in, and this is topologically, the direct product of the line \mathbb{R}^1 and the circle S^1: \mathbb{R}^1 \times \mathbb{S}^1.

This makes some sense intuitively, but can someone please explain this direct product equivalence to me as I do not have a firm background in topology (unfortunately, I need some of it for a project so I am reading it as I go along -- a bad idea, but I have no time :().

Specifically, how does this direct product come about?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about the plane in polar coordinates: ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2. If you remove the point r=0 then you can cover the the remaining space with the coordinates -\infty < u < \infty (r = e^u) and \theta. The metric is then ds^2 = e^{2u} (du^2 + d\theta^2 ). The appearance of this overall prefactor in the metric means that the plane with a point removed is not only topologically equivalent but also conformally equivalent to a cylinder \mathbb{R}_u \times S^1_\theta. In plain terms, by locally deforming the punctured plane you can endow it with the metric of a flat cylinder which should make the topological equivalence clear.
 
Thanks Physics Monkey, that small substitution step helped quite a bit. Can you suggest some good references where I could learn more about these things without getting too caught up in formalism (which I have appreciation for, but just no time :frown:). Ryder makes all these statements which I am sure make sense if one thinks about them the way you suggest, but that does require some background in topology which I lack (I am concurrently reading topology but I am way behind all this.)
 
Try Nakahara: Geometry, Topology and Physics
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
2
Replies
80
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top