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

International Journal of Modern Physics B

Quantum phase: A different approach

Marco A. Tapia-Valerdi, I. Ramos-Prieto, Francisco Soto, H. M. Moya-Cessa, M. Fernández‐Guasti

Published Dec 6, 2025• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is generally thought that, in the same way that position and momentum are canonical variables in quantum mechanics, the number operator should have a canonical operator, i.e., there should be a possibility of defining a well-defined phase operator associated with it. From the point of view of the phase space, it becomes clearer as position and momentum uncertainties are well reflected. Indeed, the same occurs in the phase space for phase and intensity. In this contribution, we do a small survey on the possibilities of defining a phase operator via discrete Fourier operators and introduce some possible applications.

DOI
10.1142/s021797922630001x

Related papers

Canonical transformations to action and phase-angle variables and phase operators

Alfredo Luis, Luis Lorenzo Sánchez-Soto

The well-known difficulties of defining a phase operator of an oscillator are considered from the point of view of the canonical transformation to action and phase-angle variables. This transformation turns out to be nonbijective, i.e., it is not a one-to-one onto mapping. In order to make possible the unitarity of its representations in quantum optics we should enlarge the Hilbert space of the problem. In this enlarged space we find a phase operator that, after projection, reproduces previous candidates to represent a well-behaved phase operator in the quantum domain.

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1993•18 citations

Quantum-optical Phase and Canonical Conjugation

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

We use a new limiting procedure, developed to study quantum-optical phase, to examine canonically conjugate operators in general. We find that Dirac's assumption that photon number and phase should be canonically conjugate variables, similar to momentum and position, is essentially correct. The difficulties with Dirac's approach are shown to arise through use of a form of the canonical commutator which, although the only possible form in the usual infinite Hilbert space approach, is not sufficiently general to be used as a model for a number-phase commutator. The approach in this paper unifies the theory of conjugate operators, which include photon number and phase, angular momentum and angle, and momentum and position as particular cases. The usual position-momentum commutator is regained from a more generally applicable expression by means of a domain restriction which cannot be used for the phase-number commutator.

Journal of Modern Optics•Nov 1, 1990•71 citations

Modified Heisenberg Commutations Relations and Its Standard Hamiltonian Interpretation

Mauricio Contreras G., Roberto Ortiz, José Mauricio González

This paper analyzes the modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relations or GUP, from a standard Hamiltonian point of view. For a one-dimensional system, a such modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relation is defined by the commutator between a position x^ and a momentum operator p^ (called the deformed momentum), which becomes a function F of the same operators: x^,p^=F(x^,p^), that is, the Heisenberg algebra closes itself in general in a nonlinear way. The function F also depends on a parameter that controls the deformation of the Heisenberg algebra in such a way that for a null parameter value, one recovers the usual Heisenberg algebra x^,p^0=iℏI. Thus, it naturally raises the following questions: What does a relation of this type mean in Hamiltonian theory from a standard point of view? Is the deformed momentum the canonical variable conjugate to the position in such a relation? Moreover, what are the canonical variables in this model? The answer to these questions comes from the existence of two different phase spaces: The first one, called the non-deformed phase (which is obtained for control parameter value equal to zero), is defined by the Cartesian x^ coordinate and its non-deformed conjugate momentum p^0, which satisfies the standard quantum mechanical Heisenberg commutation relation. The second phase space, the deformed one, is given by the deformed momentum p^ and a new position coordinate y^, which is its canonical conjugate variable, so y^ and p^ also satisfy standard commutation relations. We construct a classical canonical transformation that maps the non-deformed phase space into the deformed one for a specific class of deformation functions F. Additionally, a quantum mechanical operator transformation is found between the two non-commutative phase spaces, which allows the Schrödinger equation to be written in both spaces. Thus, there are two equivalent quantum mechanical descriptions of the same physical process associated with a deformed commutation relation.

Mathematics•Dec 3, 2025•0 citations

Quantum phase and quantum phase operators: some physics and some history

Michael Martin Nieto

After reviewing the role of phase in quantum mechanics, I discuss, with the aid of a number of unpublished documents, the development of quantum phase operators in the 1960's. Interwoven in the discussion are the critical physics questions of the field: are there (unique) quantum phase operators and are there quantum systems which can determine their nature? I conclude with a critique of recent proposals which have shed new light on the problem.

arXiv:hep-th/9304036•Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 1993•61 citations

The Pegg–Barnett phase operator and the discrete Fourier transform

Armando Perez-Leija, Luis A Andrade-Morales, Francisco Soto +2 more

Abstract In quantum mechanics the position and momentum operators are related to each other via the Fourier transform. In the same way, here we show that the so-called Pegg–Barnett phase operator can be obtained by the application of the discrete Fourier transform to the number operators defined in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Furthermore, we show that the structure of the London–Susskind–Glogower phase operator, whose natural logarithm gives rise to the Pegg–Barnett phase operator, is contained in the Hamiltonian of circular waveguide arrays. Our results may find applications in the development of new finite-dimensional photonic systems with interesting phase-dependent properties.

arXiv:1512.07175•Physica Scripta•Mar 22, 2016•14 citations

Fourier theory, uncertainty relations, and quantum phase

Jeffrey H. Shapiro, Scott Roger Shepard, N. C. Wong

The problem of phase in quantum mechanics is an old one but one that has received increasing attention of late. For a single-mode radiation field with annihilation operator â there have been two recent formulations for its quantum phase, Pegg and Bamett1 have created a Hermitian phase operator ϕ ^ s by truncating the state space associated with â to the subspace spanned by the number kets {|n〉:0 ≤ n ≤ S}.

•May 21, 1990•1 citation
It is generally thought that, in the same way that position and momentum are canonical variables in quantum mechanics, the number operator should have a canonical operator, i.e., there should be a possibility of defining a well-defined phase operator associated with it. From the point of view of the phase space, it becomes clearer as position and momentum uncertainties are well reflected. Indeed, the same occurs in the phase space for phase and intensity. In this contribution, we do a small survey on the possibilities of defining a phase operator via discrete Fourier operators and introduce some possible applications.
The well-known difficulties of defining a phase operator of an oscillator are considered from the point of view of the canonical transformation to action and phase-angle variables. This transformation turns out to be nonbijective, i.e., it is not a one-to-one onto mapping. In order to make possible the unitarity of its representations in quantum optics we should enlarge the Hilbert space of the problem. In this enlarged space we find a phase operator that, after projection, reproduces previous candidates to represent a well-behaved phase operator in the quantum domain.
We use a new limiting procedure, developed to study quantum-optical phase, to examine canonically conjugate operators in general. We find that Dirac's assumption that photon number and phase should be canonically conjugate variables, similar to momentum and position, is essentially correct. The difficulties with Dirac's approach are shown to arise through use of a form of the canonical commutator which, although the only possible form in the usual infinite Hilbert space approach, is not sufficiently general to be used as a model for a number-phase commutator. The approach in this paper unifies the theory of conjugate operators, which include photon number and phase, angular momentum and angle, and momentum and position as particular cases. The usual position-momentum commutator is regained from a more generally applicable expression by means of a domain restriction which cannot be used for the phase-number commutator.
This paper analyzes the modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relations or GUP, from a standard Hamiltonian point of view. For a one-dimensional system, a such modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relation is defined by the commutator between a position x^ and a momentum operator p^ (called the deformed momentum), which becomes a function F of the same operators: x^,p^=F(x^,p^), that is, the Heisenberg algebra closes itself in general in a nonlinear way. The function F also depends on a parameter that controls the deformation of the Heisenberg algebra in such a way that for a null parameter value, one recovers the usual Heisenberg algebra x^,p^0=iℏI. Thus, it naturally raises the following questions: What does a relation of this type mean in Hamiltonian theory from a standard point of view? Is the deformed momentum the canonical variable conjugate to the position in such a relation? Moreover, what are the canonical variables in this model? The answer to these questions comes from the existence of two different phase spaces: The first one, called the non-deformed phase (which is obtained for control parameter value equal to zero), is defined by the Cartesian x^ coordinate and its non-deformed conjugate momentum p^0, which satisfies the standard quantum mechanical Heisenberg commutation relation. The second phase space, the deformed one, is given by the deformed momentum p^ and a new position coordinate y^, which is its canonical conjugate variable, so y^ and p^ also satisfy standard commutation relations. We construct a classical canonical transformation that maps the non-deformed phase space into the deformed one for a specific class of deformation functions F. Additionally, a quantum mechanical operator transformation is found between the two non-commutative phase spaces, which allows the Schrödinger equation to be written in both spaces. Thus, there are two equivalent quantum mechanical descriptions of the same physical process associated with a deformed commutation relation.
Abstract In quantum mechanics the position and momentum operators are related to each other via the Fourier transform. In the same way, here we show that the so-called Pegg–Barnett phase operator can be obtained by the application of the discrete Fourier transform to the number operators defined in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Furthermore, we show that the structure of the London–Susskind–Glogower phase operator, whose natural logarithm gives rise to the Pegg–Barnett phase operator, is contained in the Hamiltonian of circular waveguide arrays. Our results may find applications in the development of new finite-dimensional photonic systems with interesting phase-dependent properties.