This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The confusion below speaks to the need to re-write the article in toto, IMO. -Dawn McGatney —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGatney ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do physicists really use φ(x) for the wave function and φ0 for the phase? — Omegatron 22:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The test refers to entities called A, B and C. Are these waves? Are they the waves in the diagrams? Some clarification would be nice for people who do not know this material.
Shouldn't the equation be:
(Note the minus phi rather than the plus)
As is shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave (albeit with some other variables included).
Surely this way of writing it makes more sense as well as it would mean that a wave that is time shifted in front of another would have a positive phase difference rather than a negative one. It would also make the example make more sense which shows a minus of a phase difference for a wave shifted forward.
-- Datr 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Take one waveform, copy it and paste it a quarter of an oscillation away. I'm sure you can see that they are not the same. Figure this one out, and you'll also figure why it's + and not -. -- Freanz5 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following, which refers to a diagram that no longer exists:
“ | Both A and B have the same
amplitude and the same
wavelength.
It is apparent that the positions of the peaks (X), troughs (Y) and zero-crossing points (Z) of both waves all coincide. The phase difference of the waves is thus zero, or, the waves are said to be in phase. If the two in-phase waves A and B are added together (for instance, if they are two light waves shining on the same spot), the result will be a third wave of the same wavelength as A and B, but with twice the amplitude. This is known as constructive interference. ... A and C are also of the same amplitude and wavelength. However, it can be seen that although the zero-crossing points (Z) are coincident between A and C, the positions of the peaks and troughs are reversed, that is an X on A becomes a Y on C, and vice versa. In this case, the two waves are said to be out of phase or in antiphase, or the phase difference of the two waves is π radians, or half the wavelength (λ/2). If waves A and C are added, the result is a wave of zero amplitude. This is called destructive interference. In this situation, a peak (X) on wave A becomes a zero-crossing point (Z) on D, a zero-point becomes a peak, and so on. The waves A and D can be said to be in quadrature, or exactly π/2, or λ/4 out of phase. |
” |
-- Heron 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
NO! you guys are wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.81.221 ( talk) 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The major problem with the image is that the phase difference between the two time-shifted waves should be measured vertically, not horizontally. Horizontal measurement only measures time. Phase difference would be measured as the difference of arccosines of unit-magnitude sinewaves. - swstadel 01 Oct 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh?? Please explain the difference between time shifting a sine wave and phase shifting a sine wave. — Omegatron 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
my bolding and caps
-- Light current 00:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, IMO, all it needs really is the x axis labelling as Phase (deg)-- 0 to 360 say, or Phase (rad) 0 to 2pi.-- Light current 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ive changed the caption now. Thats all I can do ATM to make it less misleading -- Light current 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be incorrect as it stands because the diag shows the distance between the two points shown as being a phase diff. Phase is not the same thing as time 8-|-- Light current 20:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume you are asking these questions in good faith so I will answer likewise. The phase shifted version would of course be a sine wave displaced along the horizontal axis by degrees from the original waveform.
The equation of the phase shifted waveform is: NB phi may be +ve or -ve -- Light current 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1][2]
If its not policy, why is it on the policy page?-- Light current 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You are being obtuse 'O'. REread my above comments. Bob, tHe image is 'misleading'. The directive is to remove misleading info.-- Light current 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Only for a fixed frequency!-- Light current 20:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes thats OK. The diagram(s) though, should reflect what the text is saying. Only when its the correct last word! 8-)-- Light current 22:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good examples of phase difference: [2] The lh phasor diag shows phase diff. The rh waveform shows subsequent time delay between the waveforms.-- Light current 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What's with the [single brackets] everywhere? Looks like those should be (parentheses)? — Omegatron 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Is "phase shifting a wave by 180°" the same thing as "inverting the polarity of a wave"? Does it even make sense to say "phase shifting a wave" when the wave is not a sinusoid? See Talk:Active_noise_control#Phase_vs._polarity. — Omegatron 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
Just moving the template here where it belongs. -- Your friendly, neighborhood housekeeper, Flex 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I have no idea what the first sentence means. 155.97.15.236 ( talk) 04:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It is important to mention that the phase is zero when the wave is maximal. It is mentioned in the definition of "Instantaneous phase", but it should be mentioned here too.
Yes please MarkAnthonyBoyle 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge completed, since the little serious replies seen are positive. Fuzzygenius 06:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one question: When you spend 1 watt of sending a wave to meet another 1 watt wave in opposite phase, you end up with zero energy because they cancel each other. According to the energy laws; where have those 2 watts in total gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.122.108 ( talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Instantaneous phase has a formal definition that is applicable to more general functions and unambiguously defines a function's initial phase at t=0." This is definitely wrong, compare with the article about instantaneous phase. Pk72 ( talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A recent mass change replaced all the θ's with φ's, with the explanation: "Try to impose a little bit of consistency in notation. Most of the time, the convention is θ for the entire angle or argument to the sin() function and it's φ for the phase offset." I'm all for consistency, but is that statement a correct one? In my experience, instantaneous phase is always written as φ(t), and the instantaneous phase of is So θ is a better choice (than φ) for x. -- Bob K ( talk) 14:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume you are referring to the "phase offset" (a constant), rather than φ(t). So perhaps the convention is that when talking about φ(t) ( instantaneous phase), phase offsets are represented by θ to avoid writing And otherwise (such as here), a constant phase offset is most often represented by φ. Another case where that works is the narrowband signal model ( Phase_(waves)#In-phase and quadrature (I&Q) components), where the carrier and the phase modulation are considered separately, rather than as a whole instantaneous phase. -- Bob K ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if it may be worth to make a difference of the phase term discussed here with the phase term in the complex domain representation of signals. For example, a sinusoidal signal (real) can be represented in magnitude-phase, and its phase (which in this case can be understood as the angle with respect to the positive real axis) takes only 0 or pi radians. We even can add a "phase shift" to the aforementioned signal but the signal phase will still take 0 or pi radians. For example, cos(wt) and cos(wt + phi) can be thought of a real vector in the complex domain varying its magnitude from 1 to -1 periodically. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanZur ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The explanation is vague and it isn't tied in with the figure. What part of this circuit represents phase compensation and what part represents the phase to be compensated? What amplifier stage is switched into the signal path? Is the amplifier in the figure part of a larger system? Constant314 ( talk) 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The figure purports to illustrate a phase compensation circuit. But, the circuit has no dc feedback and could not work as a standalone circuit, although it could be an element of a larger system where there was overall dc feedback. But even then it’s not likely to produce useful phase compensation. At low frequency this circuit is an integrator with produces -90° degrees of phase shift. As frequency increases (assuming C1 >> C2) the circuit starts to resemble straight gain for frequency greater than ω₁ = 1/ (C1 x R2) and less than ω₂ = 1/ (C2 x R2). Above ω₂ it again resembles an integrator with phase shift of -90°. So, looking at the phase shift of this circuit, it starts out at -90°, then it increases toward 0°, but stays slightly negative and then decreases toward -90°. This circuit adds negative phase at most frequencies which is usually the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a loop. A lead-lag configuration would be a typical example of phase compensation of a larger loop. Constant314 ( talk) 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is about phase which is a very general concept. Phase compensation is a technique used to change the phase shift of an electrical circuit or other linear system. Phase compensation is often used to stabilize circuits and systems that use feedback. A factually correct section about phase compensation might logically appear in an article about feedback, opamps or servos among others. It is out of place in this article.
The figure has no explanation of how the circuit works, what it does or how to use it. The particular circuit depicted is unlikely to be used for phase compensation because its phase shift is always negative.
Phase compensation is not a correction for phase error. It can be used to adjust the phase shift of a circuit.
Phase compensation is not required to obtain stability in an opamp but it can be used to improve the phase margin of an opamp and it can be used to stabilize a circuit that includes an opamp.
Phase compensation does not subtract out an amount of phase shift from a signal which is equal to the amount of phase shift added by switching one or more additional amplifier stages into the amplification signal path. Constant314 ( talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for the promised discussion about a merge with Instantaneous Phase. Nobody home. Well anyhow, I vote "no", because this article is about a constant, and the other article is about a time-variant function.
-- Bob K ( talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I vote no also. Constant314 ( talk) 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I vote no. Article instantaneous phase is about concepts related to but distinct from the topic of article phase (waves). (What's more, the "encyclopedic voices" adopted by the two articles are different. Merging would probably mean cacophony.) -- νημινυλι ( talk) 04:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No. for all of the above reasons. But the Instantaneous phase article needs improvement. 70.109.185.7 ( talk) 03:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I vote no, since phase angle can be applied to any complex number or 2D vector, while the phase of this article is only applicable to waves. Ulflund ( talk) 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak support. I believe Ulflund's concerned could be addressed in the merged article. Constant314 ( talk) 14:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the merge templates. In nearly three years even the person who added the templates, user:Mario Castelán Castro, hasn't bothered to come here with a rationale for merging. Spinning Spark 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The following statement is incorrect, unnecessarily complicated, and not particularly relevant:
An equivalent formula is (see List of trigonometric identities#Linear combinations):
where and .
The incorrect part (fixed) is:
A simpler statement, but still not helpful would be:
-- Bob K ( talk) 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say the formula isn't important. I said it isn't relevant to the point of this particular article. But perhaps that was just a lazy way of saying that it just shows up without sufficient justification. And it did seem unnecessarily complicated to me. I'll give it some more thought too.
--
Bob K (
talk) 13:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The point you would make here is also made at
Phasor#Addition and at
In-phase_and_quadrature_components#Narrowband_signal_model, which are both listed in the See Also section. But we could make it more obvious by adding a footnote here containing a simple statement that would include those links.
--
Bob K (
talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This article only seems to discuss phase as a function of one variable, such as time, even though there are various examples of ones that rely on two or more variables. For example, the phase of a plane wave might take the form , which is consistent with its usage in the Jones calculus article.
So unless I'm missing something, this article might need a rewrite, because it currently only defines phase for the one variable case. Thoughts?
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The confusion below speaks to the need to re-write the article in toto, IMO. -Dawn McGatney —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGatney ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Do physicists really use φ(x) for the wave function and φ0 for the phase? — Omegatron 22:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The test refers to entities called A, B and C. Are these waves? Are they the waves in the diagrams? Some clarification would be nice for people who do not know this material.
Shouldn't the equation be:
(Note the minus phi rather than the plus)
As is shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave (albeit with some other variables included).
Surely this way of writing it makes more sense as well as it would mean that a wave that is time shifted in front of another would have a positive phase difference rather than a negative one. It would also make the example make more sense which shows a minus of a phase difference for a wave shifted forward.
-- Datr 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Take one waveform, copy it and paste it a quarter of an oscillation away. I'm sure you can see that they are not the same. Figure this one out, and you'll also figure why it's + and not -. -- Freanz5 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following, which refers to a diagram that no longer exists:
“ | Both A and B have the same
amplitude and the same
wavelength.
It is apparent that the positions of the peaks (X), troughs (Y) and zero-crossing points (Z) of both waves all coincide. The phase difference of the waves is thus zero, or, the waves are said to be in phase. If the two in-phase waves A and B are added together (for instance, if they are two light waves shining on the same spot), the result will be a third wave of the same wavelength as A and B, but with twice the amplitude. This is known as constructive interference. ... A and C are also of the same amplitude and wavelength. However, it can be seen that although the zero-crossing points (Z) are coincident between A and C, the positions of the peaks and troughs are reversed, that is an X on A becomes a Y on C, and vice versa. In this case, the two waves are said to be out of phase or in antiphase, or the phase difference of the two waves is π radians, or half the wavelength (λ/2). If waves A and C are added, the result is a wave of zero amplitude. This is called destructive interference. In this situation, a peak (X) on wave A becomes a zero-crossing point (Z) on D, a zero-point becomes a peak, and so on. The waves A and D can be said to be in quadrature, or exactly π/2, or λ/4 out of phase. |
” |
-- Heron 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
NO! you guys are wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.81.221 ( talk) 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The major problem with the image is that the phase difference between the two time-shifted waves should be measured vertically, not horizontally. Horizontal measurement only measures time. Phase difference would be measured as the difference of arccosines of unit-magnitude sinewaves. - swstadel 01 Oct 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh?? Please explain the difference between time shifting a sine wave and phase shifting a sine wave. — Omegatron 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
my bolding and caps
-- Light current 00:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, IMO, all it needs really is the x axis labelling as Phase (deg)-- 0 to 360 say, or Phase (rad) 0 to 2pi.-- Light current 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ive changed the caption now. Thats all I can do ATM to make it less misleading -- Light current 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be incorrect as it stands because the diag shows the distance between the two points shown as being a phase diff. Phase is not the same thing as time 8-|-- Light current 20:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume you are asking these questions in good faith so I will answer likewise. The phase shifted version would of course be a sine wave displaced along the horizontal axis by degrees from the original waveform.
The equation of the phase shifted waveform is: NB phi may be +ve or -ve -- Light current 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1][2]
If its not policy, why is it on the policy page?-- Light current 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You are being obtuse 'O'. REread my above comments. Bob, tHe image is 'misleading'. The directive is to remove misleading info.-- Light current 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Only for a fixed frequency!-- Light current 20:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes thats OK. The diagram(s) though, should reflect what the text is saying. Only when its the correct last word! 8-)-- Light current 22:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Good examples of phase difference: [2] The lh phasor diag shows phase diff. The rh waveform shows subsequent time delay between the waveforms.-- Light current 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What's with the [single brackets] everywhere? Looks like those should be (parentheses)? — Omegatron 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Is "phase shifting a wave by 180°" the same thing as "inverting the polarity of a wave"? Does it even make sense to say "phase shifting a wave" when the wave is not a sinusoid? See Talk:Active_noise_control#Phase_vs._polarity. — Omegatron 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
Just moving the template here where it belongs. -- Your friendly, neighborhood housekeeper, Flex 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I have no idea what the first sentence means. 155.97.15.236 ( talk) 04:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It is important to mention that the phase is zero when the wave is maximal. It is mentioned in the definition of "Instantaneous phase", but it should be mentioned here too.
Yes please MarkAnthonyBoyle 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge completed, since the little serious replies seen are positive. Fuzzygenius 06:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one question: When you spend 1 watt of sending a wave to meet another 1 watt wave in opposite phase, you end up with zero energy because they cancel each other. According to the energy laws; where have those 2 watts in total gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.122.108 ( talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Instantaneous phase has a formal definition that is applicable to more general functions and unambiguously defines a function's initial phase at t=0." This is definitely wrong, compare with the article about instantaneous phase. Pk72 ( talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A recent mass change replaced all the θ's with φ's, with the explanation: "Try to impose a little bit of consistency in notation. Most of the time, the convention is θ for the entire angle or argument to the sin() function and it's φ for the phase offset." I'm all for consistency, but is that statement a correct one? In my experience, instantaneous phase is always written as φ(t), and the instantaneous phase of is So θ is a better choice (than φ) for x. -- Bob K ( talk) 14:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume you are referring to the "phase offset" (a constant), rather than φ(t). So perhaps the convention is that when talking about φ(t) ( instantaneous phase), phase offsets are represented by θ to avoid writing And otherwise (such as here), a constant phase offset is most often represented by φ. Another case where that works is the narrowband signal model ( Phase_(waves)#In-phase and quadrature (I&Q) components), where the carrier and the phase modulation are considered separately, rather than as a whole instantaneous phase. -- Bob K ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if it may be worth to make a difference of the phase term discussed here with the phase term in the complex domain representation of signals. For example, a sinusoidal signal (real) can be represented in magnitude-phase, and its phase (which in this case can be understood as the angle with respect to the positive real axis) takes only 0 or pi radians. We even can add a "phase shift" to the aforementioned signal but the signal phase will still take 0 or pi radians. For example, cos(wt) and cos(wt + phi) can be thought of a real vector in the complex domain varying its magnitude from 1 to -1 periodically. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanZur ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The explanation is vague and it isn't tied in with the figure. What part of this circuit represents phase compensation and what part represents the phase to be compensated? What amplifier stage is switched into the signal path? Is the amplifier in the figure part of a larger system? Constant314 ( talk) 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The figure purports to illustrate a phase compensation circuit. But, the circuit has no dc feedback and could not work as a standalone circuit, although it could be an element of a larger system where there was overall dc feedback. But even then it’s not likely to produce useful phase compensation. At low frequency this circuit is an integrator with produces -90° degrees of phase shift. As frequency increases (assuming C1 >> C2) the circuit starts to resemble straight gain for frequency greater than ω₁ = 1/ (C1 x R2) and less than ω₂ = 1/ (C2 x R2). Above ω₂ it again resembles an integrator with phase shift of -90°. So, looking at the phase shift of this circuit, it starts out at -90°, then it increases toward 0°, but stays slightly negative and then decreases toward -90°. This circuit adds negative phase at most frequencies which is usually the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a loop. A lead-lag configuration would be a typical example of phase compensation of a larger loop. Constant314 ( talk) 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is about phase which is a very general concept. Phase compensation is a technique used to change the phase shift of an electrical circuit or other linear system. Phase compensation is often used to stabilize circuits and systems that use feedback. A factually correct section about phase compensation might logically appear in an article about feedback, opamps or servos among others. It is out of place in this article.
The figure has no explanation of how the circuit works, what it does or how to use it. The particular circuit depicted is unlikely to be used for phase compensation because its phase shift is always negative.
Phase compensation is not a correction for phase error. It can be used to adjust the phase shift of a circuit.
Phase compensation is not required to obtain stability in an opamp but it can be used to improve the phase margin of an opamp and it can be used to stabilize a circuit that includes an opamp.
Phase compensation does not subtract out an amount of phase shift from a signal which is equal to the amount of phase shift added by switching one or more additional amplifier stages into the amplification signal path. Constant314 ( talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for the promised discussion about a merge with Instantaneous Phase. Nobody home. Well anyhow, I vote "no", because this article is about a constant, and the other article is about a time-variant function.
-- Bob K ( talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I vote no also. Constant314 ( talk) 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I vote no. Article instantaneous phase is about concepts related to but distinct from the topic of article phase (waves). (What's more, the "encyclopedic voices" adopted by the two articles are different. Merging would probably mean cacophony.) -- νημινυλι ( talk) 04:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No. for all of the above reasons. But the Instantaneous phase article needs improvement. 70.109.185.7 ( talk) 03:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I vote no, since phase angle can be applied to any complex number or 2D vector, while the phase of this article is only applicable to waves. Ulflund ( talk) 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak support. I believe Ulflund's concerned could be addressed in the merged article. Constant314 ( talk) 14:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the merge templates. In nearly three years even the person who added the templates, user:Mario Castelán Castro, hasn't bothered to come here with a rationale for merging. Spinning Spark 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The following statement is incorrect, unnecessarily complicated, and not particularly relevant:
An equivalent formula is (see List of trigonometric identities#Linear combinations):
where and .
The incorrect part (fixed) is:
A simpler statement, but still not helpful would be:
-- Bob K ( talk) 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say the formula isn't important. I said it isn't relevant to the point of this particular article. But perhaps that was just a lazy way of saying that it just shows up without sufficient justification. And it did seem unnecessarily complicated to me. I'll give it some more thought too.
--
Bob K (
talk) 13:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The point you would make here is also made at
Phasor#Addition and at
In-phase_and_quadrature_components#Narrowband_signal_model, which are both listed in the See Also section. But we could make it more obvious by adding a footnote here containing a simple statement that would include those links.
--
Bob K (
talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This article only seems to discuss phase as a function of one variable, such as time, even though there are various examples of ones that rely on two or more variables. For example, the phase of a plane wave might take the form , which is consistent with its usage in the Jones calculus article.
So unless I'm missing something, this article might need a rewrite, because it currently only defines phase for the one variable case. Thoughts?