Nobelprize for quantum optics

[vanesch]

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/index.html

Glauber, Hall and Haensch.

Glauber for his quantum optics,
the two others for their contribution to spectroscopy.

 

[ZapperZ]

We must not forget that Glauber's body of work includes a substantial portion on the quantum theory of coherence for photons and photon correlations. One only needs to check the citation of his work to see the huge amount of applications that have resulted in his theoretical work.

I must admit ignorance about the contribution of the other two. This is as good as a time as any to find out...

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

I must admit ignorance about the contribution of the other two.

Yeah, me too. I knew about Glauber's work (in fact, somehow it is not clear to me what is Glauber's work, and what is Mandel's work: as I understand well, they were both the "founding fathers" of quantum optics, and even somehow rivals I thought I could make up about the tone of certain publications).
I never heard about the others. But then, I don't know much about spectroscopy in general...

 

[marcus]

Nobel Prize in physics goes to optics

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/press.html

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/index.html

half to Roy Glauber (Harvard)
"for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence"

a quarter each to John L. Hall
(University of Colorado, JILA; National Institute of Standards and Technology)

and Theodor W. Hänsch
(Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik
Garching, Germany; Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
Munich)

"for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique"

EDIT: HERE ARE A COUPLE OF GOOD ARTICLES from Nobel site---if anyone wants to read about the 2005 physics laureates' work.

This one is more basic and easy to understand
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/info.pdf

This gives more history, more technical detail
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/phyadv05.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

Hope you don't mind, marcus. I merged your thread with this one that was there already.

Zz.

 

[marcus]

Hope you don't mind, marcus. I merged your thread with this one that was there already.

Zz.

Indeed I don't mind! I appreciate having it consolidated.

 

[flexten]

Thanks for the references marcus, i was somewhat disconcerted by the AP feed (a snippet here):


"Until Glauber published his theories in 1963, scientists dismissed the idea that quantum theory, which was developed to describe the behavior of particles, had any application to light. But Glauber showed that certain types of light — including lasers — could only be fully understood using quantum methods, which treat light as individual packets of energy rather than continuous waves."


I wonder who released that summary to the press?

I find it somewhat odd that Julian Swinger didn't mention Glauber during his lectures at my school (1973), of course it was a series of lectures on theory, not a history lesson.

Thanks Roy Glauber

 

[marcus]

Thanks for the references marcus, i was somewhat disconcerted by the AP feed (a snippet here):


"Until Glauber published his theories in 1963, scientists dismissed the idea that quantum theory, which was developed to describe the behavior of particles, had any application to light. But Glauber showed that certain types of light — including lasers — could only be fully understood using quantum methods, which treat light as individual packets of energy rather than continuous waves."


I wonder who released that summary to the press?

I find it somewhat odd that Julian Swinger didn't mention Glauber during his lectures at my school (1973), of course it was a series of lectures on theory, not a history lesson.

Thanks Roy Glauber

I thought one of the first quantum theory papers of all time was the 1905 einstein paper about the photoelectric effect----that light energy comes in packets which he or somebody called named "photons"

so at the very beginning, quantum mechanics was about light

so I am confused by what you quote from the Associated Press wireservice.

maybe I just don't understand what the reporter is trying to say, but out of context it sounds misinformed

 

[ZapperZ]

Never trust science or the historical accuracy of science done in popular media.

Zz.

 

[reilly]

Glauber: elegant, empirical, far reaching. Richly deserved.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[ZapperZ]

While we are celebrating this year's Nobel prizes, let's not forget that at roughly the same time, the Ig Nobel prizes for 2005 were also awarded! :)

http://www.improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html

Zz.