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

arXiv:quant-ph/0304157 · Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics

On the quantum phase problem

J M Vargas-Martínez, H Moya-Cessa

Published Mar 1, 2004• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present a phase formalism that passes the Barnett-Pegg acid test, i.e. phase fluctuations for a number state are the expected value $π^2/3$ which are the fluctuations for a classical random phase distribution. The formalism is shown to have consistency subjected to different approaches.

DOI
10.1088/1464-4266/6/3/024

Related papers

On the quantum phase problem

J. M. Vargas-Martínez, H. M. Moya-Cessa

We present a phase formalism that passes the Barnett-Pegg acid test, i.e. phase fluctuations for a number state are the expected value $\\pi^2/3$ which are the fluctuations for a classical random phase distribution. The formalism is shown to have consistency subjected to different approaches.

•Apr 24, 2003•2 citations

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

An Approach to the Study of Quantum Phase Problem Based on Action-Angle Wigner Distribution

Jie Quan-Lin, Shun-Jin Wang

Quantum phase distribution is expressed in terms of action-angle Wigner distribution function. It turns out to coincide with the limit case of Pegg–Barnett theory. This discrete phase space approach, in which some concepts such as quantum phase operator are not needed, can express phase-related quantities in a unified way. The expectation values and variances of and are the same as those of Susskind–Glogower theory. The phase-(particle) number uncertainty has a simple form in this formalism.

Communications in Theoretical Physics•Jul 30, 1999•0 citations

Formal relation between Pegg-Barnett and Paul quantum phase frameworks

Tomasz Linowski, Konrad Schlichtholz, Łukasz Rudnicki

The problem of defining a Hermitian quantum phase operator is nearly as old as quantum mechanics itself. Throughout the years, a number of solutions have been proposed, ranging from abstract operator formalisms to phase-space methods. In this work, we make an explicit connection between two of the most prominent approaches by proving that the probability distribution of phase in the Paul formalism follows exactly from the Pegg-Barnett formalism by combining the latter with the quantum-limited amplifier channel. Our findings suggest that the Paul framework may be viewed as a semiclassical limit of the Pegg-Barnett approach.

arXiv:2205.09481•Physical Review A•Mar 20, 2023•5 citations

Phase properties of real field states: The Garrison-Wong versus Pegg-Barnett predictions

Ts. Gantsog, Adam Miranowicz, R. Tanaś

A comparison is made of predictions for the phase variances and the phase distribution functions obtained from the Garrison-Wong and Pegg-Barnett formalisms for real field states that include number states, coherent states, and squeezed vacuum states. It is shown that both approaches lead to qualitatively different phase distributions. The Garrison-Wong approach predicts an anisotropy of the phase distribution that is inconsistent with the symmetry of the Wigner and Q functions.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1992•21 citations

The Pegg-Barnett Formalism and Covariant Phase Observables

PEKKA J. LAHTI, Juha-Pekka Pellonpää

We compare the Pegg-Barnett (PB) formalism with the covariant phase observable approach to the problem of quantum phase and show that PB-formalism gives essentially the same results as the canonical (covariant) phase observable. We also show that PB-formalism can be extended to cover all covariant phase observables including the covariant phase observable arising from the angle margin of the Husimi Q -function.

arXiv:quant-ph/0106084•Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 2002•17 citations
We present a phase formalism that passes the Barnett-Pegg acid test, i.e. phase fluctuations for a number state are the expected value π2/3π^2/3π2/3 which are the fluctuations for a classical random phase distribution. The formalism is shown to have consistency subjected to different approaches.
We present a phase formalism that passes the Barnett-Pegg acid test, i.e. phase fluctuations for a number state are the expected value pi2/3\\pi^2/3pi2/3 which are the fluctuations for a classical random phase distribution. The formalism is shown to have consistency subjected to different approaches.
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.
The problem of defining a Hermitian quantum phase operator is nearly as old as quantum mechanics itself. Throughout the years, a number of solutions have been proposed, ranging from abstract operator formalisms to phase-space methods. In this work, we make an explicit connection between two of the most prominent approaches by proving that the probability distribution of phase in the Paul formalism follows exactly from the Pegg-Barnett formalism by combining the latter with the quantum-limited amplifier channel. Our findings suggest that the Paul framework may be viewed as a semiclassical limit of the Pegg-Barnett approach.