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

Phase measurements

Stephen Mark Barnett, David Thomas Pegg

Published May 1, 1993• 17 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We address the problem of identifying an operational prescription for quantum phase measurements. As is known, different experiments can lead to different measured phase operators. However, we show that ambiguities of interpretation can arise even if a single experiment, such as that of Noh, Foug\`eres, and Mandel [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1426 (1991)], is chosen as defining a phase measurement. We show by reference to a simple but fundamental example that it is not possible to deduce a unique phase difference from the measurements.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.47.4537

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Further investigations of the operationally defined quantum phase’’

Z. Hradil, J. Bajer

The normalization of the phase experiment of the scheme 1 in the paper of Noh, Foug\`eres, and Mandel [Phys. Rev. A 46, 2840 (1992)] is inappropriate. The correct treatment of this measurement tends to the same result as in their scheme 2.

Physical Review A•Aug 1, 1993•6 citations

Comment on ‘‘Operational approach to the phase of a quantum field’’

Z. Hradil

Interpretational difficulties of a quantum measurement [J. W. Noh, A. Foug\`eres, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 45, 424 (1992)] are pointed out. The nonunitarity of the respective exponential phase operator reflects an enhanced noise, which can be reduced by discarding ambiguous output data. Consequently, dispersion of such measurements does not represent a meaningful performance measure relevant to the input state. Moreover, the proposed model of quantum phase measurements provides a discrete spectrum of the quantum phase operator, whereas the phase-shift parameter is continuous.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1993•33 citations

Phase in quantum optics

Stephen Mark Barnett, David Thomas Pegg

Dirac's prescription for quantisation does not lead to a unique phase operator for the electromagnetic field. The authors consider the commonly employed phase operators due to Susskind and Glogower (1964) and their extension to unitary exponential phase operators. However, they find that phase measuring experiments respond to a different operator. They discuss the form of the measured phase operator and its properties.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Dec 21, 1986•206 citations

Comparison of Vogel-Schleich phase theory with quantum phase measurements

Robert Lynch

The predictions of the Vogel-Schleich (VS) phase theory are compared to the recent experimental quantum phase measurements of Noh, Foug\`eres, and Mandel (NFM) [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1426 (1991)]. Agreement is found to be excellent over the expected range of validity of the VS theory. Hence it appears that, contrary to the view of NFM, an abstract phase theory can predict their results independently of the detailed experimental configuration.

Physical Review A•Feb 1, 1993•11 citations

Phase measurement andQfunction

Ulf Leonhardt, Henryk Paul

Generalizing a recent theoretical result obtained by Freyberger and Schleich [Phys. Rev. A 47, R30 (1993)], we show that the phase-measurement scheme proposed and realized by Noh, Foug\`eres, and Mandel [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1426 (1991); Phys. Rev. A 45, 424 (1992)] amounts to measuring the Q function for the light under investigation, provided the reference beam (used for homodyne detection) is a very strong coherent field so that it can be described classically. The desired phase distribution follows from the Q function by averaging over the field amplitude. Since an analysis of an earlier proposal by Bandilla and Paul [Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 23, 323 (1969)] to measure phase distributions via amplification led to just the same result, a perfect physical equivalence of those two approaches has thus been established.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1993•131 citations

Operational approach to phase operators based on classical optics

J. W. Noh, A Fougères, L. Mandeļ

Our operational approach to the problem of identifying dynamical variables to represent the phase, or the sine and cosine of the phase, of a quantum field is reviewed. We start from classical optics and examine what is usually measured to determine the phase difference between two fields. We point out that difficulties in phase measurements exist even in the classical domain, and these difficulties persist when the classical relations are used as guides in the construction of phase operators. We find that different measurement procedures lead naturally to different phase operators, so that there appears to be no one "correct" phase operator. We carry out a series of experiments to measure the phase difference between two fields in various quantum states, and then compare the results with the predictions of our formalism and some other formalisms. We obtain good agreement between experiment and our theoretical approach in every case, so far without exception.

Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 1993•22 citations
We address the problem of identifying an operational prescription for quantum phase measurements. As is known, different experiments can lead to different measured phase operators. However, we show that ambiguities of interpretation can arise even if a single experiment, such as that of Noh, Foug`eres, and Mandel [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1426 (1991)], is chosen as defining a phase measurement. We show by reference to a simple but fundamental example that it is not possible to deduce a unique phase difference from the measurements.
Interpretational difficulties of a quantum measurement [J. W. Noh, A. Foug\`eres, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 45, 424 (1992)] are pointed out. The nonunitarity of the respective exponential phase operator reflects an enhanced noise, which can be reduced by discarding ambiguous output data. Consequently, dispersion of such measurements does not represent a meaningful performance measure relevant to the input state. Moreover, the proposed model of quantum phase measurements provides a discrete spectrum of the quantum phase operator, whereas the phase-shift parameter is continuous.
Generalizing a recent theoretical result obtained by Freyberger and Schleich [Phys. Rev. A 47, R30 (1993)], we show that the phase-measurement scheme proposed and realized by Noh, Foug\`eres, and Mandel [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1426 (1991); Phys. Rev. A 45, 424 (1992)] amounts to measuring the Q function for the light under investigation, provided the reference beam (used for homodyne detection) is a very strong coherent field so that it can be described classically. The desired phase distribution follows from the Q function by averaging over the field amplitude. Since an analysis of an earlier proposal by Bandilla and Paul [Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 23, 323 (1969)] to measure phase distributions via amplification led to just the same result, a perfect physical equivalence of those two approaches has thus been established.
Our operational approach to the problem of identifying dynamical variables to represent the phase, or the sine and cosine of the phase, of a quantum field is reviewed. We start from classical optics and examine what is usually measured to determine the phase difference between two fields. We point out that difficulties in phase measurements exist even in the classical domain, and these difficulties persist when the classical relations are used as guides in the construction of phase operators. We find that different measurement procedures lead naturally to different phase operators, so that there appears to be no one "correct" phase operator. We carry out a series of experiments to measure the phase difference between two fields in various quantum states, and then compare the results with the predictions of our formalism and some other formalisms. We obtain good agreement between experiment and our theoretical approach in every case, so far without exception.