Talk:Quantum optics

message: Apparently some researchers at Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)used a couple of techniques to cool a mirror to -274 celsius, using two techniques called optical trapping (something to do with keeping a mirror in a precise position) and optical damping, which i think is a form of doppler cooling.  
There aren't any articles about optical damping available on wiki, here's the article i found these referenced in. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/409/1 .  Hopefully someone can explain it in more detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.246.65 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical Damping 

message: Hi, I've just read the History section of the article and I've found two points that may be relevant.
*Use of the word photonics "Research into quantum optics (...) is now often called photonics". While this is one acception, photonics may also refer to the optical telecomunication industry.
*Photoelectric effect "the only possible explanation for the effect was the existence of particles of light called photons". After having read , I would attenuate the affirmation. I don't have the article anymore, but the summary I had made back then reads "the onset of the photoelectric effect, the relation between electron energy and the wave frequency, the bunching of photoelectrons in a Hanbury-Brown and Twiss interferometer as well as their poissonian statistics can be acounted for in a ad hoc semiclassical theory (classical field)". Historically, it seems that the discovery of Compton scattering has played a great role in the acceptation of Einstein's theory. --Mathieu Perrin (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds plausible. I'd have no objection if you copied the summary into the article, and icluded the reference, per usual. User:Linas (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I disagree with the opening sentence: "Light is made up of particles called photons and hence inherently is "grainy" (quantized)."  Can someone point out the evidence for the pointlike character of photons?  I accept the existence of discrete excitations of the electromagnetic field.  However, the best I can do to produce a particle seems to be to consider a superposition of energy states to form a wavepacket.  However, a wavepacket is not a fundamental, indivisible element of the electromagnetic field.  
The opening sentence presupposes the existence of particles called photons and uses this to justify the quantization that we observe.  Logically, this does not seem tenable.  Historically, we observed quantization and have invented the idea of photons (as quanta of the E/M field) as a result.  However, to the very best of my knowledge, we don't have strong evidence that light is made up of indivisible particles.  67.171.217.43 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: The article titled Quantum electronics has been redirected here, and copied with minimal changes to maintain sentence structure. It looks weak, and the Discussion page cut and paste below is not encouraging. This is just an interim step in cleanup of links from major revision of J.B. Gunn article. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum electronics

message: "Solid-State Physics regularly takes Quantum Mechanics into account, and is usually concerned with electrons."
I'm a little uncertain about the above quote for the following reasons:  
* A lot of work copes pretty well with semi-classical models. 
* The second part ("is usually concerned with electrons") is a bit unclear.  Phonons are a good example of Solid-State Physics, not concerned with electrons.
Can anyone think of a more accurate replacement for this sentence? --djsik 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Solid State Physics and Electrons

message: I'm interested in quantum electronics, but this page only talks about its loss of focus because of its migration in to simular subjects but nothing about quantum electronics itself. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum electronics

message: I think JCM is important/useful for thinking about quantum optics, but it's not mentioned on this page. 128.62.20.76 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaynes-Cummings model?