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

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Phase-difference operator’ ’’

Alfredo Luis, Luis Lorenzo Sánchez-Soto

Published Jan 1, 1995• 13 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In response to the objection raised by Pegg and Vaccaro [the preceding Comment] we point out that their example is not a difficulty in directly representing the phase difference by the ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Phi}}}_{12}$ operator. In fact, we argue that it is a property common to a wide range of phase descriptions, including the Pegg-Barnett formalism.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.51.861

Related papers

Reply to ‘‘Phase measurements’’

J. W. Noh, A. Fougères, L. Mandeļ

In response to the Comment by Barnett and Pegg [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. A 47, 4537 (1993)] it is pointed out that their objection is really based on a different measurement scheme. If our measurement procedure is repeated many times with different phase shifters inserted at one input port, the method yields an almost continuous probability density.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1993•8 citations

Connection between the Pegg-Barnett and the Bialynicki-Birula phase operators

M. B. Cibils, Y. Cuche, Valdecir Marvulle +1 more

We establish a connection between the unitary phase operator recently introduced by Pegg and Barnett [Europhys. Lett. 6, 483 (1988)] with a useful representation due to Bialynicki-Birula, which allows for powerful semiclassical expansions.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1991•11 citations

The Pegg-Barnett phase-operator formalism as a q-deformed theory: limiting procedure and weak deformation

Sumiyoshi Abe

Physics Letters A•Apr 1, 1995•7 citations

Reply to “Comment on `Equivalence between SWH phase operator and Ban's phase operator revealed by virtue of the representation' ” by A. Lukš and V. Peřinová

Hong-Yi Fan, Zhihu Sun

Physics Letters A•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations

The problem with “The problem of the Pegg–Barnett phase operator”

John A. Vaccaro, David Thomas Pegg, Stephen Mark Barnett

Physics Letters A•Nov 1, 1999•7 citations

The quantum description of optical phase

Michael J. W. Hall

It is shown that the Susskind-Glogower phase states and the Pegg-Barnett Hermitian phase operator lead to equivalent descriptions of optical phase, via a (well defined) positive-operator-valued measure. Thus, the observable conjugate to the photon number exists only in a generalized sense. The Pegg-Barnett formalism is clarified and some misapplications in the literature pointed out.

Quantum Optics Journal of the European Optical Society Part B•Feb 1, 1991•51 citations
In response to the objection raised by Pegg and Vaccaro [the preceding Comment] we point out that their example is not a difficulty in directly representing the phase difference by the \ensuremathΦ12{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Phi}}}_{12}\ensuremathΦ12​ operator. In fact, we argue that it is a property common to a wide range of phase descriptions, including the Pegg-Barnett formalism.