Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Phase-difference operator’ ’’
In response to the objection raised by Pegg and Vaccaro [the preceding Comment] we point out that their example is not a difhculty in directly representing the phase difference by the φ12 operator. In fact, we argue that it is a property common to a wide range of phase descriptions, including the Pe...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 1995 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/59839 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/59839 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | 535 Quantum-theory Óptica (Física) 2209.19 Óptica Física |
| Sumario: | In response to the objection raised by Pegg and Vaccaro [the preceding Comment] we point out that their example is not a difhculty in directly representing the phase difference by the φ12 operator. In fact, we argue that it is a property common to a wide range of phase descriptions, including the Pegg-Barnett formalism. |
|---|