Reply to a Comment on "Role of Potentials in the Aharonov-Bohm Effect"

TL;DR

This paper defends the author's claim that potentials are not necessary for explaining the Aharonov-Bohm effect, countering a comment that challenges this view with additional examples and analysis.

Contribution

The author provides a detailed rebuttal to a comment, reaffirming that potentials are not essential for explaining the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and clarifies the relevance of additional examples.

Findings

The original explanation without potentials remains valid.

Most counterexamples are not relevant or do not refute the original claim.

The comment's examples do not provide robust counterexamples.

Abstract

Preceding Comment challenged my claim that potentials might be just auxiliary mathematical tools and that they are not necessary for explaining physical phenomena. The Comment did not confront my explanation without potentials of the Aharonov-Bohm effects appeared in the original paper, but stated that I cannot apply this explanation for seven other examples. In my reply I provide explanations using my method, of one of the examples, show that two other example are not relevant, and agree that the remaining examples require further analysis. However, I argue that none of the examples provide robust counter examples to my claim similar to the original Aharonov-Bohm setups which were explained in my Paper, so the Comment does not refute my claim.