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

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics

Reminiscing about thesis work with E T Jaynes at Stanford in the 1950s

F.W. Cummings

Published Nov 1, 2013• 49 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract A short personal and historical account of the field of radiation interacting with (two-level) atoms is given. Subsequent to 1963, developments and extensions have been extensive and fruitful. One of the most fortunate changes in my life came in late 1957. I was looking for a thesis advisor, after two years of graduate course-work at Stanford. I chanced to see a notice of an upcoming lecture by a professor named Edwin T Jaynes. I could not understand from the announcement what he intended to talk about, but I was searching; I went to find out. That decision was a very lucky one. Ed was talking about a subject that inspired him then, and had been for many years, namely his concept of 'Max-Ent'. 'Maximum-Entropy' is a subject now close to my heart also. Ed's very-clear, well-thought-out papers, spread over many subsequent years, are transforming the field of probability (albeit too gradually) to the 'subjective' outlook of Bayes. (A recent book 'Maximum Entropy and Ecology' [1] will probably convert many nay-sayers to 'Max-Ent'.) I went into Ed's office (late 1957) and asked if I could work with him on a thesis. Did he have a problem for me? Yes, he did. Somewhat to my surprise, he asked me to look into the 'maser problem', involving a comparison of the semi-classical theory of radiation to a proper quantum treatment. To make a two-year story short, Ed's guidance was expert. (I imagine that if another of Ed's students (e.g. Joe Eberly) had come into his office fifteen minutes before me, the 'Jaynes–Cummings' (J–C) model would now perhaps be called otherwise, e.g., the 'J–E' model). In the two-year time frame (∼1958–60), Ed had a number of other PhD dissertation students whom I knew; these included Joe Eberly, Doug Scalapino, Baldwin Robertson, Larry Davis and Mike Duggan. My thesis work under Ed reminds me of a story about Michelangelo and his famous 'Pieta'. Michelangelo was an old man about then, so he hired a young craftsman to do much of the physical work: 'chip here, carve there, cut off here, eliminate this, etc'. When the beautiful Pieta was finished, the young man was heard to say, 'I didn't realize before this that I was so talented'. Experiments by Clauser in 1972 on Bell's inequalities (e.g. [2]) showed them to be correct, and indicated that semi-classical alternatives to quantum electrodynamics were not viable. Working with Stuart Freedman, these were the first experimental tests of the predictions of Bell's theorem, the first observation of quantum entanglement, as well as the first experimental observation of a violation of a Bell inequality. The perturbation formulation of quantum radiation theory has long been rife with vexing infinities. Ed always insisted that only experiment can end an argument, so he and his students had been sensibly exploring semi-classical theory. This was not only because of the serious failings of standard QED, but more importantly because of the fact that (an improved) semi-classical theory was able to predict both spontaneous emission, with the correct Einstein coefficients, and the Lamb shift. These two effects have long been thought only possible in the quantum radiation domain (cf [3]). Ed readily accepted losing his bet with Franken about what experiment had to say about the Lamb shift. What is clear is that this bet of $50 with Peter Franken stimulated so much subsequent research that this bet played an important role in generally furthering the field of quantum optics. How did 'J–C' come to be published as it did in the IEEE [4]? Ed was not well known for the extravagant use of words, rather for paucity, clarity and economy. After about two years of working with Ed, he said to me one day, 'You have enough, write it up'. He also said 'We should publish'. (This was around early 1960). About this same time, I was contacted by someone from a new research lab just starting in Newport Beach, California (called 'Aeroneutronic', a division of Ford), asking if I would come to work there. I thought it sounded about right as an approximately two–three year position: repay some debts and look around at other possibilities (especially academe?). I left around June 1960 to take up this position in the research lab in Newport Beach. At about this same time (∼late 1959), Ed was moving to his new 'chair' at Washington University in St Louis. I proceeded as quickly as I could to put together a thesis after arriving in Newport Beach; I wrote about what I had done, as best as I could in my naiveté about such undertakings. I wrote of the work I had done under Ed's kind and patient guidance for the two years in Palo Alto. I soon remembered that Ed had done a recent Stanford Microwave Lab report on our project; his writing was so much better than mine that I thought it witless to put out something as 'uneven' as I had written by then. At just this time that I was cobbling together a thesis, a consultant at Aeroneutronic, Jay Singer of UC Berkeley EE department, approached me in the hall, (no tele-commuting then!) asking if I might have something to contribute to a special issue of a journal of the IEEE he was editing, on the subject of 'Quantum Electronics'. (Comment: One of the earliest predecessors to the MRI, Jay Singer was then measuring the blood flow in rat tails and human arms; he holds two key MRI patents). I said I thought I did have something. The journal sounded appropriate, so I soon handed my 'thesis' to Jay, put Ed's name first (of course, since it consisted so largely of his words from the Microwave Lab report, but also since Ed was my 'guru'), ...and that was that...done [4]. From my perspective, it seemed to subsequently sink to the bottom of the sea, not to be seen by me again for many years until the elegant Walther–Rempe–Klein (WRK) experiments of 1987 on long-time coherent radiative behavior appeared [5]. They confirmed the long-time quantum-theoretical results of Eberly, Narozhny and Sanchez-Mondragon [6]. Bob Buley and I, while at Aeroneutronic, had published in the field of lasers [7], based on the J–C model. We found very strange, puzzling 'chaotic' output of a 'Q-switched' laser. When computer time-steps were changed, the chaos didn't disappear. It was about then (∼June 1963) that both Bob and I headed elsewhere: I to the early-forming UC Riverside Physics Department as Assistant Professor, and Bob to a company in Santa Barbara. Our work on the mysterious 'chaotic' laser effect then ended (the term 'chaos' was not yet in the physics lexicon); Bob was the computer expert, our non-linear laser problem demanded rigorous numerical computations, and I was not savvy with the (then) 'refrigerator-sized' computers at UCR. P W Milonni has greatly extended this work (cf [8]). Mike Tavis, my graduate student at UCR around 1965, extended the J–C model to N atoms [9]. (We have more recently collaborated in a further study of this and other extensions of J–C.) The silence and zero feedback from the 'J–C', Buley and 'T–C' papers for so many years following 1965 was a bit deafening, so I thought it would be best that I go mostly onto other topics. One day in about 1989, I got a tap on the shoulder from a colleague at UCR: 'I saw your name in the title of a paper'. ('Huh?'). An astonishing number of exciting and important new topics have emerged since the 1987 WRK experiment, providing an ever-branching tree of both new theory and experiment. It is tempting to entitle this piece as 'Get your name in print: Diagonalize a 2 × 2'. References [1] Harte J 2011 Maximum Entropy and Ecology: A Theory of Abundance, Distribution, and Energetics (Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution) (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [2] Freedman S J and Clauser J F 1972 Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 938 [3] Stroud C R Jr and Jaynes E T 1970 Long-term solutions in semiclassical radiation theory Phys. Rev. A 1 106 [4] Jaynes E T and Cummings F W 1963 Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser Proc. IEEE 51 89 [5] Rempe G, Walther H and Klein N 1987 Observation of quantum collapse and revival in a one-atom maser Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 353 [6] Eberly J H, Narozhny N B and Sanchez-Mondragon J J 1980 Periodic spontaneous collapse and revival in a simple quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 1323 [7] Buley E R and Cummings F W 1964 Dynamics of a system of N atoms interacting with a radiation field Phys. Rev. 134 A1454 [8] Milonni P W, Shin M-L and Ackerhalt J R 1987 Chaos in Laser–Matter Interactions (Singapore: World Scientific) [9] Tavis M and Cummings F W 1968 Exact solution for an N -molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian Phys. Rev. 170 379

DOI
10.1088/0953-4075/46/22/220202

Related papers

Physics and Probability : Essays in Honor of Edwin T. Jaynes

Walter T. Grandy, Peter W. Milonni

Preface 1. Recollection of an independent thinker Joel A. Snow 2. A look back: early applications of maximum entropy estimation to quantum statistical mechanics D. J. Scalapino 3. The Jaynes-Cummings revival B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight 4. The Jaynes-Cummings model and the one-atom-master H. Walther 5. The Jaynes-Cummings model is alive and well P. Meystre 6. Self-consistent radiation reaction in quantum optics - Jaynes' influence and a new example in cavity QED J. H. Eberly 7. Enhancing the index of refraction in a nonabsorbing medium: phaseonium versus a mixture of two-level atoms M. O. Scully, T. W. Hansch, M. Fleischhauer, C. H. Keitel and Shi-Yao Zhu 8. Ed Jaynes' steak dinner problem II Michael D. Crisp 9. Source theory of vacuum field effects Peter W. Milonni 10. The natural line shape Edwin A. Power 11. An operational approach to Schrodinger's cat L. Mandel 12. The classical limit of an atom C. R. Stroud, Jr. 13. Mutual radiation reaction in spontaneous emission Richard J. Cook 14. A model of neutron star dynamics F. W. Cummings 15. The kinematic origin of complex wave function David Hestenes 16. On radar target identification C. Ray Smith 17. On the difference in means G. Larry Bretthorst 18. Bayesian analysis, model selection and prediction Arnold Zellner and Chung-ki Min 19. Bayesian numerical analysis John Skilling 20. Quantum statistical inference R. N. Silver 21. Application of the maximum entropy principle to nonlinear systems far from equilibrium H. Haken 22. Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics Baldwin Robertson 23. A backward look to the future E. T. James Appendix. Vita and bibliography of Edwin T. Jaynes Index.

•Aug 21, 2008•30 citations

A Look Back: Early Applications of Maximum Entropy Estimation to Quantum Statistical Mechanics

Douglas J. Scalapino

. E.T. Jaynes has been the central figure for over three decades in showing how maximum entropy estimation (MEE) provides an extension of logic to cases where one cannot carry out Aristotelian deductive reasoning. Here I will review two early applications of MEE which I hope will provide some insight into how these ideas were being used in quantum and statistical mechanics around 1960. In May of ‘61 I turned in my Ph.D. thesis (Scalapino, 1961) to Stanford University and, following a well-known dictum, went on to work on other problems. Now, three decades later, on this, the occasion of Ed Jaynes’ seventieth birthday, I decided to look back to see what we were doing when I was first getting to know Ed and his special approach to problems. Not surprisingly, my thesis contains several applications of the principle of Maximum Entropy Estimation (MEE). In 1957 Ed had written two seminal articles (Jaynes, 1957(a), 1957(b)) showing how one could use Shannon's (1948) Information Theory to construct density matrices for a variety of different problems in equilibrium statistical mechanics. I had been very much taken with this work and wanted to understand how it could be applied to other systems.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 2, 1993•0 citations

The physics of superconducting microwave resonators

Jiansong Gao

This thesis is dedicated to my dearest wife, Yingyan, who has been a constant source of inspiration and support through all stages of my life since high school, and to our lovely boy, Logan, who came to our family just before the thesis was finished. iv Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my advisor Professor Jonas Zmuidzinas for giving me the opportunity to work on this great project of MKID. I came to Caltech in 2002 and originally planned to work in the field of optics. Failing to join any optics group on campus, I luckily ran across Jonas in a talk on MKID he gave to the students in applied physics major. These detectors made of resonators immediately attracted my interest. I still remember the interview that took place at Jonas ’ office. Desperate to join a research group, I was advertising how good I was in both theory and experiment. At some point I mentioned that I had taken a mathematical course on stochastic process, which had caught Jonas ’ attention. He immediately gave me a quiz, asking me to state the Weiner-Kinchin theorem. Fortunately, I was able to give the correct answer promptly. He was very satisfied and said, “Let me show you the lab.” That was how I joined the MKID group and also where my journey of noise study started. It

•Jan 1, 2008•190 citations

Could Feynman Have Said This?

N. David Mermin

Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 42 4 1989 9 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963. April 1989, page 9 ). I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut up and calculate!"In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago (February 2004, page 10).Given my capacity for intellectual development ("inconsistency," in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue.This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as "the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics."I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem (Physics Today, April 1985, page 47) consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics. But while "shut up and calculate" sounded dimly familiar to me as a characterization of a certain interpretive stance, I couldn't recall where Feynman had written it. Mulling this over, a terrible thought began to dawn on me. Could it be that I myself had once used the phrase? If so, then it would appear that I had picked it up from something by Feynman, forgotten the source, and presented it as my own. Devastating!It was devastating because I have a horror of writing or uttering any witticism that is not original with me, unless I make it absolutely clear where and (if known) from whom I got it. I don't even like to tell jokes unless I've made them up myself. (I digress to offer you my favorite:Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics? Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics. Mathematical physicists tend not to like this joke, but other physicists seem to. Nonphysicists, of course, are entirely immune to its charms.)So with growing trepidation, I searched through my past writings on quantum mechanics. I was dismayed when I came upon my 1989 column, which confirmed my worst fears. Not only had I appropriated without proper attribution a Feynman quote, but it appeared to be a famous one. How humiliating! I was afflicted with visions of knowledgeable Physics Today readers shaking their heads 15 years ago at what must have struck them as my shameless attempt to ride to literary glory on the unacknowledged shoulders of Feynman.So I went to the Web to find the source, hoping I could then salvage my reputation by persuading Physics Today to print an addendum or erratum. Google gives more than 130 hits containing both "shut up and calculate" and "feynman." Most of these do not directly link the two, but about a dozen do. Here are a few: "Shut up and calculate" was a motto of Richard Feynman.For example, there's Feynman's "shut up and calculate."My personal philosophy is that of the famous physicist Richard Feynman, who said: "Shut up and calculate."When asked which interpretation of QM he favored, Feynman replied "Shut up and calculate."Richard Feynman foreslog ligefrem en "shut up and calculate" fortolkning af kvantemekanikken.Shut up and calculate—Richard Feynman.Just to make sure, I also searched for "shut up and calculate" and "mermin." I found only 10 hits, all of them mentioning me in ways that had nothing to do with their use, elsewhere, of "shut up and calculate." So it would have been clear to the world that I had indeed passed off Feynman's words as my own.Or had I …?I noticed that not a single one of the Web sites attributing the phrase to Feynman cited a source or hinted at the circumstances under which he had said it. A ray of hope flickered on: Could I once again have become a victim of the Matthew effect?The Matthew effect was enunciated by the great sociologist of science, Robert Merton. 1 1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 Merton worked in those innocent days when sociologists were interested only in the behavior of scientists and not in the content of their science. (To be fair to contemporary sociologists of science, I should modify that last phrase to "and not in the manifestations of that behavior in the content of their science.") I first learned of the Matthew effect more than 20 years ago, on the occasion of my first and, perhaps until now, only, victimization at the hands of the New York Times.I learned the name for what the Times had done to me when I received a very nice note from P. W. Anderson in which he expressed his regret that the newspaper had given him exclusive credit for a nomenclatural advance that was entirely due to me. "A depressingly typical example of the Matthew effect" was how he characterized the misattribution. (I reported the entire history of this contretemps in these pages back in those dark ages [April 1981, page 46] before there were Reference Frame columns.) When I wrote back asking him what the Matthew effect was, he referred me to Merton.It was Merton who identified and named the tendency always to assign exclusive scientific credit to the most eminent among all the plausible candidates. At least I hope it was he, though I'm sure Merton, who invented many wonderful jokes himself, would have been delighted if the credit for it turned out to be misattributed to him. Merton named the effect after the Gospel According to Matthew, because there it is written, For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.—Matthew 25:29.Could the widespread attribution of my wretched witticism to Feynman be another instance of this same deplorable practice? Had I once again been matthewed?Although I didn't say so in my old Reference-Frame article, what inspired this not so terribly bon mot were vivid memories of the responses my conceptual inquiries elicited from my professors—whom I viewed as agents of Copenhagen—when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject. "You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious business and produce some results." "Shut up," in other words, "and calculate." And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it. At Harvard, they knew how to administer tough love in those olden days.This bit of history is relevant to the question of whether Feynman's abundance might have been augmented by a portion of the little that I had. Can you imagine the young Feynman ever having had a similar experience that seared "shut up and calculate" into his tender consciousness? No, of course you can't! Nobody could ever have had the slightest reason to direct the best human calculator that ever was to shut up and calculate.But perhaps Feynman was offering such advice to others who were searching for a better understanding of the quantum mechanical formalism. I can't believe that. He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it." 2 2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.Well maybe Feynman, like me, was merely dismissing an interpretive position of others by lampooning it as a "shut up and calculate interpretation." I find this unlikely. For one thing, his strong preference for working things out for himself and, of course, his well-known disdain for philosophy make me doubt that he ever paid much attention to the interpretive positions of others. For another, would one for whom calculation was so effortless and understanding so important be likely to translate anybody's admonition against fruitless speculation into such terms?In short, I suspect that it is only Feynman's habitual irreverence that has linked him in the minds of many to the phrase "shut up and calculate." Who else among the high and mighty—and Merton has taught us that it is only among the high and mighty that people tend to look—could have said it? Albert Einstein? Don't be silly. Erwin Schrödinger? Of course not. Niels Bohr? Don't make me laugh. None of them besides Feynman could have said it. Does that mean that Feynman said it? No!Broaden the search to embrace the low and powerless. Among them am I, who hereby put forth the hypothesis that I was the first to use "shut up and calculate" in the context of quantum foundations. I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive. But, damn it, if I'm the one who said it first, then that means I did not, even unconsciously, appropriate the words of Richard Feynman and pass them off as my own. So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms—a lesser offense than unconscious plagiarism, in my moral bookkeeping.So, dear reader, if you have evidence that Feynman really did say "shut up and calculate," please send it to me. I will not be happy to receive it. I'd rather be a Matthew victim than a plagiarist. But I'd like to know the truth.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2004 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•May 1, 2004•133 citations

The Jaynes–Cummings Model is Alive and Well

Pierre Meystre

Introduction In 1963, E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings published a paper entitled “Comparison of Quantum and Semiclassical Radiation Theories, with Application to the Beam Maser.” This paper was written at a time when the quantum theory of the laser had not yet been worked out, and represented an attempt at discussing the new behaviour that could be expected from treating the field quantum mechanically instead of classically. Jaynes and Cummings began by considering the interaction between a single two-level molecule and a single field mode, a simple situation which has become known as the Jaynes-Cummings model. Treating then the maser medium as a beam of two-level systems initially in a mixture of their upper and lower states characterized by a temperature T , they found that the field mode reached a thermal equilibrium with temperature T f = Ω T /ω, where ω is the transition frequency of the two-level systems and Ω is the field mode frequency, provided that T > 0. For T < 0, the steady state field was found to contain an infinite amount of energy, an unphysical result resulting from the neglect of losses in the model. Jaynes and Cummings then proceeded to develop an alternative semi-classical theory of the beam maser, introducing their famous neo-classical theory of spontaneous emission. An important follow-up paper was published by F. W. Cummings, who studied the long-time behavior of a two-level system interacting with a quantized single-mode field initially in a coherent state.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 2, 1993•0 citations

Report on radiation and the quantum-theory

Sir. James Hopwood Jeans.

•Sep 9, 2010•58 citations
Abstract A short personal and historical account of the field of radiation interacting with (two-level) atoms is given. Subsequent to 1963, developments and extensions have been extensive and fruitful. One of the most fortunate changes in my life came in late 1957. I was looking for a thesis advisor, after two years of graduate course-work at Stanford. I chanced to see a notice of an upcoming lecture by a professor named Edwin T Jaynes. I could not understand from the announcement what he intended to talk about, but I was searching; I went to find out. That decision was a very lucky one. Ed was talking about a subject that inspired him then, and had been for many years, namely his concept of 'Max-Ent'. 'Maximum-Entropy' is a subject now close to my heart also. Ed's very-clear, well-thought-out papers, spread over many subsequent years, are transforming the field of probability (albeit too gradually) to the 'subjective' outlook of Bayes. (A recent book 'Maximum Entropy and Ecology' [1] will probably convert many nay-sayers to 'Max-Ent'.) I went into Ed's office (late 1957) and asked if I could work with him on a thesis. Did he have a problem for me? Yes, he did. Somewhat to my surprise, he asked me to look into the 'maser problem', involving a comparison of the semi-classical theory of radiation to a proper quantum treatment. To make a two-year story short, Ed's guidance was expert. (I imagine that if another of Ed's students (e.g. Joe Eberly) had come into his office fifteen minutes before me, the 'Jaynes–Cummings' (J–C) model would now perhaps be called otherwise, e.g., the 'J–E' model). In the two-year time frame (∼1958–60), Ed had a number of other PhD dissertation students whom I knew; these included Joe Eberly, Doug Scalapino, Baldwin Robertson, Larry Davis and Mike Duggan. My thesis work under Ed reminds me of a story about Michelangelo and his famous 'Pieta'. Michelangelo was an old man about then, so he hired a young craftsman to do much of the physical work: 'chip here, carve there, cut off here, eliminate this, etc'. When the beautiful Pieta was finished, the young man was heard to say, 'I didn't realize before this that I was so talented'. Experiments by Clauser in 1972 on Bell's inequalities (e.g. [2]) showed them to be correct, and indicated that semi-classical alternatives to quantum electrodynamics were not viable. Working with Stuart Freedman, these were the first experimental tests of the predictions of Bell's theorem, the first observation of quantum entanglement, as well as the first experimental observation of a violation of a Bell inequality. The perturbation formulation of quantum radiation theory has long been rife with vexing infinities. Ed always insisted that only experiment can end an argument, so he and his students had been sensibly exploring semi-classical theory. This was not only because of the serious failings of standard QED, but more importantly because of the fact that (an improved) semi-classical theory was able to predict both spontaneous emission, with the correct Einstein coefficients, and the Lamb shift. These two effects have long been thought only possible in the quantum radiation domain (cf [3]). Ed readily accepted losing his bet with Franken about what experiment had to say about the Lamb shift. What is clear is that this bet of $50 with Peter Franken stimulated so much subsequent research that this bet played an important role in generally furthering the field of quantum optics. How did 'J–C' come to be published as it did in the IEEE [4]? Ed was not well known for the extravagant use of words, rather for paucity, clarity and economy. After about two years of working with Ed, he said to me one day, 'You have enough, write it up'. He also said 'We should publish'. (This was around early 1960). About this same time, I was contacted by someone from a new research lab just starting in Newport Beach, California (called 'Aeroneutronic', a division of Ford), asking if I would come to work there. I thought it sounded about right as an approximately two–three year position: repay some debts and look around at other possibilities (especially academe?). I left around June 1960 to take up this position in the research lab in Newport Beach. At about this same time (∼late 1959), Ed was moving to his new 'chair' at Washington University in St Louis. I proceeded as quickly as I could to put together a thesis after arriving in Newport Beach; I wrote about what I had done, as best as I could in my naiveté about such undertakings. I wrote of the work I had done under Ed's kind and patient guidance for the two years in Palo Alto. I soon remembered that Ed had done a recent Stanford Microwave Lab report on our project; his writing was so much better than mine that I thought it witless to put out something as 'uneven' as I had written by then. At just this time that I was cobbling together a thesis, a consultant at Aeroneutronic, Jay Singer of UC Berkeley EE department, approached me in the hall, (no tele-commuting then!) asking if I might have something to contribute to a special issue of a journal of the IEEE he was editing, on the subject of 'Quantum Electronics'. (Comment: One of the earliest predecessors to the MRI, Jay Singer was then measuring the blood flow in rat tails and human arms; he holds two key MRI patents). I said I thought I did have something. The journal sounded appropriate, so I soon handed my 'thesis' to Jay, put Ed's name first (of course, since it consisted so largely of his words from the Microwave Lab report, but also since Ed was my 'guru'), ...and that was that...done [4]. From my perspective, it seemed to subsequently sink to the bottom of the sea, not to be seen by me again for many years until the elegant Walther–Rempe–Klein (WRK) experiments of 1987 on long-time coherent radiative behavior appeared [5]. They confirmed the long-time quantum-theoretical results of Eberly, Narozhny and Sanchez-Mondragon [6]. Bob Buley and I, while at Aeroneutronic, had published in the field of lasers [7], based on the J–C model. We found very strange, puzzling 'chaotic' output of a 'Q-switched' laser. When computer time-steps were changed, the chaos didn't disappear. It was about then (∼June 1963) that both Bob and I headed elsewhere: I to the early-forming UC Riverside Physics Department as Assistant Professor, and Bob to a company in Santa Barbara. Our work on the mysterious 'chaotic' laser effect then ended (the term 'chaos' was not yet in the physics lexicon); Bob was the computer expert, our non-linear laser problem demanded rigorous numerical computations, and I was not savvy with the (then) 'refrigerator-sized' computers at UCR. P W Milonni has greatly extended this work (cf [8]). Mike Tavis, my graduate student at UCR around 1965, extended the J–C model to N atoms [9]. (We have more recently collaborated in a further study of this and other extensions of J–C.) The silence and zero feedback from the 'J–C', Buley and 'T–C' papers for so many years following 1965 was a bit deafening, so I thought it would be best that I go mostly onto other topics. One day in about 1989, I got a tap on the shoulder from a colleague at UCR: 'I saw your name in the title of a paper'. ('Huh?'). An astonishing number of exciting and important new topics have emerged since the 1987 WRK experiment, providing an ever-branching tree of both new theory and experiment. It is tempting to entitle this piece as 'Get your name in print: Diagonalize a 2 × 2'. References [1] Harte J 2011 Maximum Entropy and Ecology: A Theory of Abundance, Distribution, and Energetics (Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution) (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [2] Freedman S J and Clauser J F 1972 Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 938 [3] Stroud C R Jr and Jaynes E T 1970 Long-term solutions in semiclassical radiation theory Phys. Rev. A 1 106 [4] Jaynes E T and Cummings F W 1963 Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser Proc. IEEE 51 89 [5] Rempe G, Walther H and Klein N 1987 Observation of quantum collapse and revival in a one-atom maser Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 353 [6] Eberly J H, Narozhny N B and Sanchez-Mondragon J J 1980 Periodic spontaneous collapse and revival in a simple quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 1323 [7] Buley E R and Cummings F W 1964 Dynamics of a system of N atoms interacting with a radiation field Phys. Rev. 134 A1454 [8] Milonni P W, Shin M-L and Ackerhalt J R 1987 Chaos in Laser–Matter Interactions (Singapore: World Scientific) [9] Tavis M and Cummings F W 1968 Exact solution for an N -molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian Phys. Rev. 170 379
Preface 1. Recollection of an independent thinker Joel A. Snow 2. A look back: early applications of maximum entropy estimation to quantum statistical mechanics D. J. Scalapino 3. The Jaynes-Cummings revival B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight 4. The Jaynes-Cummings model and the one-atom-master H. Walther 5. The Jaynes-Cummings model is alive and well P. Meystre 6. Self-consistent radiation reaction in quantum optics - Jaynes' influence and a new example in cavity QED J. H. Eberly 7. Enhancing the index of refraction in a nonabsorbing medium: phaseonium versus a mixture of two-level atoms M. O. Scully, T. W. Hansch, M. Fleischhauer, C. H. Keitel and Shi-Yao Zhu 8. Ed Jaynes' steak dinner problem II Michael D. Crisp 9. Source theory of vacuum field effects Peter W. Milonni 10. The natural line shape Edwin A. Power 11. An operational approach to Schrodinger's cat L. Mandel 12. The classical limit of an atom C. R. Stroud, Jr. 13. Mutual radiation reaction in spontaneous emission Richard J. Cook 14. A model of neutron star dynamics F. W. Cummings 15. The kinematic origin of complex wave function David Hestenes 16. On radar target identification C. Ray Smith 17. On the difference in means G. Larry Bretthorst 18. Bayesian analysis, model selection and prediction Arnold Zellner and Chung-ki Min 19. Bayesian numerical analysis John Skilling 20. Quantum statistical inference R. N. Silver 21. Application of the maximum entropy principle to nonlinear systems far from equilibrium H. Haken 22. Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics Baldwin Robertson 23. A backward look to the future E. T. James Appendix. Vita and bibliography of Edwin T. Jaynes Index.
. E.T. Jaynes has been the central figure for over three decades in showing how maximum entropy estimation (MEE) provides an extension of logic to cases where one cannot carry out Aristotelian deductive reasoning. Here I will review two early applications of MEE which I hope will provide some insight into how these ideas were being used in quantum and statistical mechanics around 1960. In May of ‘61 I turned in my Ph.D. thesis (Scalapino, 1961) to Stanford University and, following a well-known dictum, went on to work on other problems. Now, three decades later, on this, the occasion of Ed Jaynes’ seventieth birthday, I decided to look back to see what we were doing when I was first getting to know Ed and his special approach to problems. Not surprisingly, my thesis contains several applications of the principle of Maximum Entropy Estimation (MEE). In 1957 Ed had written two seminal articles (Jaynes, 1957(a), 1957(b)) showing how one could use Shannon's (1948) Information Theory to construct density matrices for a variety of different problems in equilibrium statistical mechanics. I had been very much taken with this work and wanted to understand how it could be applied to other systems.
This thesis is dedicated to my dearest wife, Yingyan, who has been a constant source of inspiration and support through all stages of my life since high school, and to our lovely boy, Logan, who came to our family just before the thesis was finished. iv Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my advisor Professor Jonas Zmuidzinas for giving me the opportunity to work on this great project of MKID. I came to Caltech in 2002 and originally planned to work in the field of optics. Failing to join any optics group on campus, I luckily ran across Jonas in a talk on MKID he gave to the students in applied physics major. These detectors made of resonators immediately attracted my interest. I still remember the interview that took place at Jonas ’ office. Desperate to join a research group, I was advertising how good I was in both theory and experiment. At some point I mentioned that I had taken a mathematical course on stochastic process, which had caught Jonas ’ attention. He immediately gave me a quiz, asking me to state the Weiner-Kinchin theorem. Fortunately, I was able to give the correct answer promptly. He was very satisfied and said, “Let me show you the lab.” That was how I joined the MKID group and also where my journey of noise study started. It
Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 42 4 1989 9 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963. April 1989, page 9 ). I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut up and calculate!"In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago (February 2004, page 10).Given my capacity for intellectual development ("inconsistency," in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue.This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as "the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics."I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem (Physics Today, April 1985, page 47) consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics. But while "shut up and calculate" sounded dimly familiar to me as a characterization of a certain interpretive stance, I couldn't recall where Feynman had written it. Mulling this over, a terrible thought began to dawn on me. Could it be that I myself had once used the phrase? If so, then it would appear that I had picked it up from something by Feynman, forgotten the source, and presented it as my own. Devastating!It was devastating because I have a horror of writing or uttering any witticism that is not original with me, unless I make it absolutely clear where and (if known) from whom I got it. I don't even like to tell jokes unless I've made them up myself. (I digress to offer you my favorite:Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics? Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics. Mathematical physicists tend not to like this joke, but other physicists seem to. Nonphysicists, of course, are entirely immune to its charms.)So with growing trepidation, I searched through my past writings on quantum mechanics. I was dismayed when I came upon my 1989 column, which confirmed my worst fears. Not only had I appropriated without proper attribution a Feynman quote, but it appeared to be a famous one. How humiliating! I was afflicted with visions of knowledgeable Physics Today readers shaking their heads 15 years ago at what must have struck them as my shameless attempt to ride to literary glory on the unacknowledged shoulders of Feynman.So I went to the Web to find the source, hoping I could then salvage my reputation by persuading Physics Today to print an addendum or erratum. Google gives more than 130 hits containing both "shut up and calculate" and "feynman." Most of these do not directly link the two, but about a dozen do. Here are a few: "Shut up and calculate" was a motto of Richard Feynman.For example, there's Feynman's "shut up and calculate."My personal philosophy is that of the famous physicist Richard Feynman, who said: "Shut up and calculate."When asked which interpretation of QM he favored, Feynman replied "Shut up and calculate."Richard Feynman foreslog ligefrem en "shut up and calculate" fortolkning af kvantemekanikken.Shut up and calculate—Richard Feynman.Just to make sure, I also searched for "shut up and calculate" and "mermin." I found only 10 hits, all of them mentioning me in ways that had nothing to do with their use, elsewhere, of "shut up and calculate." So it would have been clear to the world that I had indeed passed off Feynman's words as my own.Or had I …?I noticed that not a single one of the Web sites attributing the phrase to Feynman cited a source or hinted at the circumstances under which he had said it. A ray of hope flickered on: Could I once again have become a victim of the Matthew effect?The Matthew effect was enunciated by the great sociologist of science, Robert Merton. 1 1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 Merton worked in those innocent days when sociologists were interested only in the behavior of scientists and not in the content of their science. (To be fair to contemporary sociologists of science, I should modify that last phrase to "and not in the manifestations of that behavior in the content of their science.") I first learned of the Matthew effect more than 20 years ago, on the occasion of my first and, perhaps until now, only, victimization at the hands of the New York Times.I learned the name for what the Times had done to me when I received a very nice note from P. W. Anderson in which he expressed his regret that the newspaper had given him exclusive credit for a nomenclatural advance that was entirely due to me. "A depressingly typical example of the Matthew effect" was how he characterized the misattribution. (I reported the entire history of this contretemps in these pages back in those dark ages [April 1981, page 46] before there were Reference Frame columns.) When I wrote back asking him what the Matthew effect was, he referred me to Merton.It was Merton who identified and named the tendency always to assign exclusive scientific credit to the most eminent among all the plausible candidates. At least I hope it was he, though I'm sure Merton, who invented many wonderful jokes himself, would have been delighted if the credit for it turned out to be misattributed to him. Merton named the effect after the Gospel According to Matthew, because there it is written, For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.—Matthew 25:29.Could the widespread attribution of my wretched witticism to Feynman be another instance of this same deplorable practice? Had I once again been matthewed?Although I didn't say so in my old Reference-Frame article, what inspired this not so terribly bon mot were vivid memories of the responses my conceptual inquiries elicited from my professors—whom I viewed as agents of Copenhagen—when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject. "You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious business and produce some results." "Shut up," in other words, "and calculate." And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it. At Harvard, they knew how to administer tough love in those olden days.This bit of history is relevant to the question of whether Feynman's abundance might have been augmented by a portion of the little that I had. Can you imagine the young Feynman ever having had a similar experience that seared "shut up and calculate" into his tender consciousness? No, of course you can't! Nobody could ever have had the slightest reason to direct the best human calculator that ever was to shut up and calculate.But perhaps Feynman was offering such advice to others who were searching for a better understanding of the quantum mechanical formalism. I can't believe that. He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it." 2 2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.Well maybe Feynman, like me, was merely dismissing an interpretive position of others by lampooning it as a "shut up and calculate interpretation." I find this unlikely. For one thing, his strong preference for working things out for himself and, of course, his well-known disdain for philosophy make me doubt that he ever paid much attention to the interpretive positions of others. For another, would one for whom calculation was so effortless and understanding so important be likely to translate anybody's admonition against fruitless speculation into such terms?In short, I suspect that it is only Feynman's habitual irreverence that has linked him in the minds of many to the phrase "shut up and calculate." Who else among the high and mighty—and Merton has taught us that it is only among the high and mighty that people tend to look—could have said it? Albert Einstein? Don't be silly. Erwin Schrödinger? Of course not. Niels Bohr? Don't make me laugh. None of them besides Feynman could have said it. Does that mean that Feynman said it? No!Broaden the search to embrace the low and powerless. Among them am I, who hereby put forth the hypothesis that I was the first to use "shut up and calculate" in the context of quantum foundations. I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive. But, damn it, if I'm the one who said it first, then that means I did not, even unconsciously, appropriate the words of Richard Feynman and pass them off as my own. So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms—a lesser offense than unconscious plagiarism, in my moral bookkeeping.So, dear reader, if you have evidence that Feynman really did say "shut up and calculate," please send it to me. I will not be happy to receive it. I'd rather be a Matthew victim than a plagiarist. But I'd like to know the truth.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2004 American Institute of Physics.
Introduction In 1963, E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings published a paper entitled “Comparison of Quantum and Semiclassical Radiation Theories, with Application to the Beam Maser.” This paper was written at a time when the quantum theory of the laser had not yet been worked out, and represented an attempt at discussing the new behaviour that could be expected from treating the field quantum mechanically instead of classically. Jaynes and Cummings began by considering the interaction between a single two-level molecule and a single field mode, a simple situation which has become known as the Jaynes-Cummings model. Treating then the maser medium as a beam of two-level systems initially in a mixture of their upper and lower states characterized by a temperature T , they found that the field mode reached a thermal equilibrium with temperature T f = Ω T /ω, where ω is the transition frequency of the two-level systems and Ω is the field mode frequency, provided that T > 0. For T < 0, the steady state field was found to contain an infinite amount of energy, an unphysical result resulting from the neglect of losses in the model. Jaynes and Cummings then proceeded to develop an alternative semi-classical theory of the beam maser, introducing their famous neo-classical theory of spontaneous emission. An important follow-up paper was published by F. W. Cummings, who studied the long-time behavior of a two-level system interacting with a quantized single-mode field initially in a coherent state.