Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical Review A

Hermitian phase-difference operator analysis of microscopic radiation-field measurements

Christopher C. Gerry, K. Urbanski

Published Jul 1, 1990• 24 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We analyze the phase-fluctuation measurements of Gerhardt et al. [Phys. Lett. 49A, 119 (1974)] on the phase fluctuations of a microscopic radiation field using the Hermitian phase-difference operator of Pegg and Barnett [Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)]. The predictions are in agreement with the measurements.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.42.662

Related papers

Fluctuation of the Barnett-Pegg phase operator in a coherent state

Robert Lynch

The expectation value and variance of a new phase operator introduced recently by Pegg and Barnett [Europhys. Lett. 6, 483 (1988); Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)] and by Barnett and Pegg [J. Mod. Opt. 36, 7 (1989)] is calculated for a coherent state. The values for the variance so obtained are compared with the phase-fluctuation measurements of Gerhardt, B\"uchler, and Liftin [Phys. Lett. 49A, 119 (1974)] and Gerhardt, Welling, and Frolich [Appl. Phys. 2, 91 (1973)]. Agreement is found to be good, provided that account is taken of the details of the experimental values.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1990•40 citations

On the Quantum Phase Operator for Coherent States

Bo-Sture Skagerstam, Bjørn Å Bergsjordet

In papers by Lynch [ Phys. Rev. A 41 2841 (1990)] and Gerry and Urbanski [ Phys. Rev. A 42 662 (1990)] it has been argued that the phase-fluctuation laser experiments of Gerhardt, Büchler and Lifkin [ Phys. Lett. 49A 119 (1974)] are in good agreement with the variance of the Pegg–Barnett phase operator for a coherent state, even for a small number of photons. We argue that this is not conclusive. In fact, we show that the variance of the phase in fact depends on the relative phase between the phase of the coherent state and the off-set phase ϕ 0 of the Pegg–Barnett phase operator. This off-set phase is replaced with the phase of a reference beam in an actual experiment and we show that several choices of such a relative phase can be fitted to the experimental data. We also discuss the Noh, Fougères and Mandel [ Phys. Rev. A 46 2840 (1992)] relative phase experiment in terms of the Pegg–Barnett phase taking post-selection conditions into account.

arXiv:quant-ph/0307156•Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 2004•7 citations

Unitary and Hermitian phase operators for the electromagnetic field

Yee Kin Tsui, Michael F. Reid

Pegg and Barnett [Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)] have proposed a formalism for a Hermitian optical phase operator, constructed from the so-called phase states. In this paper we give an alternative derivation. We begin by defining a unitary phase operator ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ from the relationship $\stackrel{^}{a}={e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}R(\stackrel{^}{N})$ ($\stackrel{^}{a}$ is an annihilation operator for a single-mode boson field), but borrow the idea of a finite- (but arbitrarily large) dimensional space from Pegg and Barnett. Finally, we comment on an experiment to determine quantum phase uncertainty. Our analysis uses the operator ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$, which we feel is a more natural choice than $\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}$. The use of ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ also avoids the multivalued problems associated with $\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}$.

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1992•11 citations

Phase fluctuations in a squeezed state using measured phase operators

Robert Lynch

The phase fluctuations in a squeezed state are considered by using the recently introduced measured phase operators of Barnett and Pegg [ J. Phys. A19, 3849 ( 1986)], which permit considerably simplified calculations compared with conventional (e.g., Susskind–Glogower) operators and yet nonetheless are found to give agreement with physical expectations for a squeezed state, while more or less producing agreement with known results in various limits.

Journal of the Optical Society of America B•Oct 1, 1987•48 citations

Phase fluctuations in the Jaynes-Cummings model with and without the rotating-wave approximation

Jin-sheng Peng, Gao‐xiang Li

In this paper, we have investigated the time evolution of the phase operator of the radiation field in the Jaynes-Cummings model with and without the rotating-wave approximation, making use of the phase formalism of Barnett and Pegg [J. Mod. Opt. 36, 7 (1989); Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)]. We verify by an analytical method that the atomic Rabi oscillation leads to phase dissipation of the radiation field, and also that the effect of the virtual-photon field can exhibit quantum fluctuations in the atom-field-coupling system and lead to a frequency shift of the radiation field.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1992•59 citations

Phase-difference fluctuations of the quantum-beat laser

Miguel Orszag, C. Saavedra

We calculate the phase-difference and phase-sum fluctuations of the quantum-beat laser, using the nonlinear model of Bergou et al. [Phys. Rev. A 38, 754 (1988)], and also making use of the phase operators defined by Pegg and Barnett [Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)]. We found a vanishing phase-difference diffusion constant, in agreement with Bergou et al. However, the present formalism is more general, and includes shot noise as well as saturation effects for the relative and sum phase fluctuations.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1991•15 citations
The expectation value and variance of a new phase operator introduced recently by Pegg and Barnett [Europhys. Lett. 6, 483 (1988); Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)] and by Barnett and Pegg [J. Mod. Opt. 36, 7 (1989)] is calculated for a coherent state. The values for the variance so obtained are compared with the phase-fluctuation measurements of Gerhardt, B\"uchler, and Liftin [Phys. Lett. 49A, 119 (1974)] and Gerhardt, Welling, and Frolich [Appl. Phys. 2, 91 (1973)]. Agreement is found to be good, provided that account is taken of the details of the experimental values.
In papers by Lynch [ Phys. Rev. A 41 2841 (1990)] and Gerry and Urbanski [ Phys. Rev. A 42 662 (1990)] it has been argued that the phase-fluctuation laser experiments of Gerhardt, Büchler and Lifkin [ Phys. Lett. 49A 119 (1974)] are in good agreement with the variance of the Pegg–Barnett phase operator for a coherent state, even for a small number of photons. We argue that this is not conclusive. In fact, we show that the variance of the phase in fact depends on the relative phase between the phase of the coherent state and the off-set phase ϕ 0 of the Pegg–Barnett phase operator. This off-set phase is replaced with the phase of a reference beam in an actual experiment and we show that several choices of such a relative phase can be fitted to the experimental data. We also discuss the Noh, Fougères and Mandel [ Phys. Rev. A 46 2840 (1992)] relative phase experiment in terms of the Pegg–Barnett phase taking post-selection conditions into account.
Pegg and Barnett [Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)] have proposed a formalism for a Hermitian optical phase operator, constructed from the so-called phase states. In this paper we give an alternative derivation. We begin by defining a unitary phase operator ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ from the relationship $\stackrel{^}{a}={e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}R(\stackrel{^}{N})$ ($\stackrel{^}{a}$ is an annihilation operator for a single-mode boson field), but borrow the idea of a finite- (but arbitrarily large) dimensional space from Pegg and Barnett. Finally, we comment on an experiment to determine quantum phase uncertainty. Our analysis uses the operator ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$, which we feel is a more natural choice than $\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}$. The use of ${e}^{i\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ also avoids the multivalued problems associated with $\stackrel{^}{\ensuremath{\varphi}}$.
In this paper, we have investigated the time evolution of the phase operator of the radiation field in the Jaynes-Cummings model with and without the rotating-wave approximation, making use of the phase formalism of Barnett and Pegg [J. Mod. Opt. 36, 7 (1989); Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)]. We verify by an analytical method that the atomic Rabi oscillation leads to phase dissipation of the radiation field, and also that the effect of the virtual-photon field can exhibit quantum fluctuations in the atom-field-coupling system and lead to a frequency shift of the radiation field.
We calculate the phase-difference and phase-sum fluctuations of the quantum-beat laser, using the nonlinear model of Bergou et al. [Phys. Rev. A 38, 754 (1988)], and also making use of the phase operators defined by Pegg and Barnett [Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989)]. We found a vanishing phase-difference diffusion constant, in agreement with Bergou et al. However, the present formalism is more general, and includes shot noise as well as saturation effects for the relative and sum phase fluctuations.