We draw a distinction between the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. Although the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift occurring when an electron beam passes around a magnetic solenoid is well-verified experimentally, it is not clear whether this phase shift occurs because of classical forces or because of a topological effect occurring in the absence of classical forces as claimed by Aharonov and Bohm. The mathematics of the Schroedinger equation itself does not reveal the physical basis for the effect. However, the (...) experimentally observed Aharonov–Bohm phase shift is of the same form as the shift observed due to electrostatic forces for which the consensus view accepts the role of the classical forces. The Aharonov–Bohm phase shift may well arise from classical electromagnetic forces which are simply more subtle in the magnetic case since they involve relativistic effects of the order v 2 /c 2 . Here we first review the experimentally observable differences between phenomena arising from classical forces and phenomena arising from the quantum topological effect suggested by Aharonov and Bohm. Second we point out that most discussions of the classical electromagnetic forces involved when a charged particle passes a solenoid are inaccurate because they omit the Faraday induction terms. The subtleties of the relativisitic v 2 /c 2 classical electromagnetic forces between a point charge and a solenoid have been explored by Coleman and Van Vleck in their analysis of the Shockley–James paradox; indeed, we point out that an analysis exactly parallel to that of Coleman and Van Vleck suggests that the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift is actually due to classical electromagnetic forces. Finally we note that electromagnetic velocity fields penetrate even excellent conductors in a form which is unfamiliar to many physicists. An ohmic conductor surrounding a solenoid does not screen out the magnetic field of the passing charge, but rather the time-integral of the magnetic field is an invariant; this time integral is precisely what is involved in the classical explanation of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. Thus the persistence of the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift when the solenoid is surrounded by a conductor does not exclude a classical force-based explanation for the phase shift. At present there is no experimental evidence for the Aharonov–Bohm effect. (shrink)

Although there is good experimental evidence for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift occurring when a solenoid is placed between the beams forming a double-slit electron interference pattern, there has been very little analysis of the relevant classical electromagnetic forces. These forces between a point charge and a solenoid involve subtle relativistic effects of order v 2 /c 2 analogous to those discussed by Coleman and Van Vleck in their treatment of the Shockley–James paradox. In this article we show that a (...) treatment exactly analogous to that given by Coleman and Van Vleck predicts classical electromagnetic forces which provide the basis for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. The magnetic force on the solenoid due to the passing charge leads to a displacement of the solenoid center of energy which must be balanced by the displacement of the passing charge. This classical displacement of the passing charge is exactly what is required to account for the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. Also, we discuss a magnetic moment model which appears frequently in the literature and note that although the model provides conservation of linear momentum, it does not satisfy the general requirements for relativistic theories. We give an example suggesting that the new equation of motion for a magnetic moment proposed by Aharonov, Pearle, and Vaidman based upon the hidden momentum of the magnetic moment is completely inappropriate. Finally, we emphasize that the Aharonov–Casher phase shift is also explained by classical electromagnetic forces exactly parallel to those explaining the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift. (shrink)

Journal of Political Philosophy, EarlyView.

C. H. Whiteley; I—The Presidential Address*: Confirmation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 74, Issue 1, 1 June 1974, Pages 1–14, https://doi.org.

At Moore’s time, the main-stream ethical theory is the doctrine that pleasure alone is good as an end as held by the hedonistic utilitarianism. Moore, however, asserts that good, not composed of any parts, is a simple notion and indefinable, and naturalistic ethical theories, in particular hedonistic utilitarianism, interpret intrinsic good as a property of a single natural object---pleasure, which is also the sole end of life, thus violates naturalistic fallacy. Moore seems to believe that there exist things other than (...) pleasure that are also intrinsically good and has searched for them. But Moore has not clearly stated what these things are, nor has he given any justification for why they are intrinsically good. This paper discusses Moore’s arguments and difficulties of utilitarianism. With the subjectivistic utilitarian theory of value, Unified Utilitarian Theory (UTT) discards the classification of value into intrinsic and instrumental and proves to be exempt of all theexisting difficulties with utilitarianism related to pleasure, including naturalistic fallacy, vagueness of pleasure and sole end of life, double counting, etc. (shrink)

Branner, H.C. Humanismens krise.--Hansen, Martin A. Eneren og massen.

Originally published in 1918, this book contains edited English translations of French texts written by the Jansenist inhabitants of Port-Royal during the seventeenth century. Barnard provides an introduction with historical background to the state of education in France at the time, and annotates each translation with pertinent historical and literary references. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in the history of education and the history of faith schools.