In a previous paper, we considered Weyl quantization of functions of the angle in phase space, in particular a phase operator Delta ( phi ) and the quantized exponentials Delta (e +or-1 phi ). In this paper we consider the first and second moments of these operators with respect to the harmonic oscillator Hermite states h n and the coherent states Phi alpha . Taking asymptotic limits we find, for example, that var[ Delta ( phi ); h n ]= pi 2 /3+O(log n/n) (n to infinity ) for the variance of Delta ( phi ) in the Hermite states. For the second moment of the phase operator in ||[ Delta ( phi )- theta ] Phi alpha || 2 =O(1/| alpha |) as | alpha | tends to infinity, amongst other results.
In a previous paper, we considered Weyl quantization of functions of the angle in phase space, in particular a phase operator Delta ( phi ) and the quantized exponentials Delta (e +or-1 phi ). In this paper we consider the first and second moments of these operators with respect to the harmonic oscillator Hermite states h n and the coherent states Phi alpha . Taking asymptotic limits we find, for example, that var[ Delta ( phi ); h n ]= pi 2 /3+O(log n/n) (n to infinity ) for the variance of Delta ( phi ) in the Hermite states. For the second moment of the phase operator in ||[ Delta ( phi )- theta ] Phi alpha || 2 =O(1/| alpha |) as | alpha | tends to infinity, amongst other results.
In a series of papers, Barnett, Pegg (1986, 1988, 1989, 1992) and various co-authors have proposed a description of quantum phase by means of a collection of s-dimensional states and operators, s>or=1. We analyse the limiting procedure they employ for large s, which is known not to be compatible with quantum mechanics in the usual sense. Further, we supply a rigorous demonstration of the asymptotic limits of the `mean` and `variance` of their system of operators in coherent states. These values had previously been given but not justified mathematically. Our analysis, based on the asymptotic analysis of certain random variables, shows that the physical deductions that can be drawn from these limits are limited. We also prove that the (s+1)-dimensional `pure phase` LHW-states they consider form a sequence of approximate eigenvectors for the Weyl-quantized angle operator Delta ( phi ) and the Toeplitz phase operator X proposed by Garrison and Wong (1970), Popov and Yarunin (1992), and others. These states X s ( theta ), to our knowledge first introduced by Lerner, Huang and Waiters (1970), can be used to construct a system of measurement as in the usual quantum theory, sensitive to certain qualities of phase, but not all. Indeed, a feature of the Barnett-Pegg method, when it gives finite answers, is the construction of associated measurement systems for different observables. We give examples of sequences of (s+1)-dimensional devices which represent measurements significantly closer to ideal for X. This serves as a model for corresponding devices for Delta ( phi ), or indeed, any observable with a continuous spectrum, contingent on its spectral decomposition being obtained explicitly.
We review some of the difficulties previously encountered in defining the phase operator for finite quantum systems. We then propose the Wigner–Weyl quantization of the angle function φ on phase space as the phase operator, and derive a closed expression for its matrix elements with respect to the Hermite functions. We also determine the quantization of e^{iφ} , which turns out to be a weighted shift operator, its spectrum and that of its adjoint. This is done in the framework of quantization of a certain symbol class of phase space distributions, specialized to those which depend on one variable only. After recalling some results for the position and momentum variables, we apply the scheme to functions of radius or angle. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for operators obtained by quantizing functions of the angle to be elements of \mathscr L^+ [\mathscr S(\mathbf R)] and \mathscr L^+ [\mathscr S (\mathbf R), L^2(\mathbf R)] , and a sufficient condition for boundedness. We then consider the associated questions of commutation relations and uncertainties for operators in \mathscr L^+ [\mathscr S(\mathbf R), L^2(\mathbf R)] , which we define as bilinear forms. As must be the case, the commutator between our phase operator and the number operator exhibits noncanonical terms. Not surprisingly, the Poisson bracket of their phase space symbols also exhibits a noncanonical term.
How does the classical notion of ``phase'' apply to a quantum harmonic oscillator H=1/2(q${\mathrm{^}}^{2}$+p${\mathrm{^}}^{2}$), [q^,p^]=i\ensuremath{\Elzxh}, which cannot have sharp position and momentum? A quantum state \ensuremath{\rho}^ can be assigned a definite classical phase only if it is a large-amplitude localized state. Our only demand, therefore, on a (Hermitian) phase operator \ensuremath{\varphi}^ is that the phase distribution P(\ensuremath{\Phi})= Tr{\ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\varphi}^-\ensuremath{\Phi})\ensuremath{\rho}^} attribute the correct sharp phase to any such ``classical phase'' state. This requires that the Weyl symbol [\ensuremath{\varphi}^]w(q,p) of \ensuremath{\varphi}^ tend to \ensuremath{\theta} mod2\ensuremath{\pi} as r\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}, where \ensuremath{\theta}=${\mathrm{tan}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}1}$(p/q) and r=(q2+p2)1/2. There are infinitely many such phase operators. Each is expressible as \ensuremath{\varphi}^=[${\mathrm{tan}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}1}$(p^/q^)${]}_{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}$, where \ensuremath{\Omega} specifies an ordering rule for q^ and p^. The commutator -i[H^,\ensuremath{\varphi}^]=1-2\ensuremath{\pi}[\ensuremath{\delta}(${\mathrm{tan}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}1}$p^/q^)${]}_{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}$ corresponds to the Poisson bracket {H,${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}_{\mathrm{cl}}$${\mathrm{}}}_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{PB}}$=1-2\ensuremath{\pi}\ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\theta}) for the single-valued classical phase ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}_{\mathrm{cl}}$=\ensuremath{\theta} mod2\ensuremath{\pi}. Phase states \ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi}) are defined by the condition that their Weyl symbols [\ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi})]w(r,\ensuremath{\theta})\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\theta}-\ensuremath{\Phi}) as r\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}. If moreover ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\int}}}_{0}^{2\mathrm{\ensuremath{\pi}}}$d\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi})=1^, then \ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi}) is a phase probability operator measure (POM). In particular, \ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\varphi}^-\ensuremath{\Phi}) is a phase POM.Normalizable approximate phase states \ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}) are defined by [\ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}$(\ensuremath{\Phi})]w(r,\ensuremath{\theta}) =2\ensuremath{\pi}${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}^{2}$${\mathit{e}}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\mathit{r}}$[\ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi})]w(r,\ensuremath{\theta}), \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\ensuremath{\ll}1. Phase states are not, in general, ``pure orthogonal'' in the sense \ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi})\ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{'})=\ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\Phi}-\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{'})\ensuremath{\Gamma}^(\ensuremath{\Phi}), unless they are of the form \ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\varphi}^-\ensuremath{\Phi}). However, any phase state \ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{1}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}) is trace orthogonal to any phase POM \ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{2}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}), in the sense that Tr{\ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{2}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{'})\ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{1}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}$(\ensuremath{\Phi})}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\delta}(\ensuremath{\Phi}-\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{'}) as \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}0. This implies that measurement of the POM \ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{2}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}\ensuremath{'}) on the state \ensuremath{\Gamma}${\mathrm{^}}_{1}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}$(\ensuremath{\Phi}) yields the outcome \ensuremath{\Phi} with probability 1 as \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}0. Phase measurements of the first kind are possible in principle; they would allow one to prepare (approximate) phase states and monitor their phase evolution in a quantum (phase) nondemolishing manner. Cases of special interest are the Susskind-Glogower and the Cahill-Glauber ordered phase states and operators. The energy-phase (or number-phase) uncertainty relation is \ensuremath{\Delta}H\ensuremath{\Delta}\ensuremath{\varphi}\ensuremath{\ge}0, the lower limit \ensuremath{\Delta}H\ensuremath{\Delta}\ensuremath{\varphi}=0 being realized by pure number states; however, for states whose Wigner functions are localized away from the origin and from the extremities of the (single-valued) phase window (0,2\ensuremath{\pi}), the uncertainty relation is effectively \ensuremath{\Delta}H\ensuremath{\Delta}\ensuremath{\varphi}\ensuremath{\ge}1/2. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
More particularly, the sets {|n〉 : n = 0, 1, · · · s} and {|θm〉 : m = 0, 1, · · · s} are two mutually unbiased bases for s as |〈n|θm〉|2 = 1/(s + 1) for n, m = 0, 1, · · · , s. The exponential phase operator is defined in terms of the phase state basis as ei φˆθ = s∑ m=0 eiθm |θm〉〈θm|, (2.4) or equivalently, in terms of the energy eigenstates as |n〉〈n + 1| + ei(s+1)θ0 |s〉〈0|. (2.5) The subscript θ serves as a reminder that the values of phase variable θm lie in the range from θ0 to θ0 + 2π . This construction ensures that the phase states are the eigenstates of ei φˆθ , i.e., ei φˆθ |θm〉 = eiθm |θm〉. (2.6) The exponential phase operator is unitary, because n=0 |n〉〈n| = 1ˆ s (2.7) where 1ˆ s is the identity operator on s . The Hermitian phase operator representing the phase angle itself was introduced in (Pegg and Barnett 1988b Paper 2.2) and (Barnett and Pegg 1989 Paper 2.3) as simply φˆθ = s∑ m=0 θm|θm〉〈θm|. (2.8) The operator on the left hand sides of Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5) is the exponential of i φˆθ .Moreover, the operator corresponding to an arbitrary function of the phase angle f (θ) was introduced in Barnett and Pegg (1992 Paper 3.3) and also discussed in Pegg and Barnett (1997a Paper 2.6) as f (φˆθ ) = s∑ m=0 f (θm)|θm〉〈θm|. (2.9) It follows that the Hermitian conjugate of ei φˆθ is the operator (ei φˆθ )† = s∑ m=0 e−iθm |θm〉〈θm| = e−i φˆθ . (2.10) This construction on the finite dimensional spaces elegantly sidesteps the problems faced with the infinite dimensional Hilbert space discussed in the previous chapter. Its simplicity is particularly appealing. The question remains, however, of how to deal with states such as | f 〉 = ∑∞n=0 cn|n〉 which reside in the infinite dimensional Hilbert space. For each value of s, there exists a phase operator defined on s ; this leads naturally to sequences of operators, such as e.g. φˆθ |s=S, φˆθ |s=S+1, φˆθ |s=S+2 · · · which are phase angle operators defined on the sequence of spaces S, S+1, S+2, · · · for arbitrarily large integer S. The space s contains a state | f 〉s which approximates | f 〉 to arbitrary precision for a sufficiently large value of s, such that the modulus of the overlap 〈 f | f 〉s is as close to unity as desired. Thus the issue of including states such as | f 〉 entails dealing with such sequences as s tends to infinity.
The Wigner quasiprobability, along with some of its essentialproperties, is introduced and discussed in two versions, first covering real canonical variables such as W(q,p) and second a pair of complex conjugate coordinates such as W(α,α*). The reconstruction of the density operator ϱ of states is also given. Building upon the Susskind–Glogower concept of quantum phase operators, further aspects of phase operator algebras in the quantum optics of a harmonic oscillator are discussed in relation to the realization of the su(1,1) Lie algebra. Coherent phase states |ε⟩ are introduced in analogy to the common coherent states |α⟩ in two ways, as both eigenstates of certain operators and as states generated from a ground state |0⟩ by operators of the Lie group SU(1,1). The limiting transition to the non-normalizable Fritz London phase states |eiφ⟩ on the unit circle and an (over)-completeness relation for the coherent phase states are derived. The Wigner quasiprobability W(q,p) for the coherent phase states is calculated and graphically represented. From the Wigner quasiprobability, a phase distribution W(φ) is calculated by integrating over the radius, and its uncertainty is defined and presented. The Hilbert–Schmidt distance is discussed as a measure of the non-classicality of states, where most of our with Viktor Dodonov work was carried out.