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

Physics World

A coherent view of modern optics

Marlan O. Scully

Published Feb 1, 1996• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

After 20 years and more than a thousand pages, Mandel and Wolf's tome on classical and quantum coherence in modern optics has arrived. It is clearly a gargantuan effort and its appearance is enthusiastically greeted by every student of optical sciences, including me, particularly given its very reasonable price tag.
DOI
10.1088/2058-7058/9/2/29

Related papers

Optical coherence and quantum optics, by Leonard Mandel and Emil Wolf

Michael G. Raymer

Optics and Photonics News•Aug 1, 1996•1 citation

Coherence of Light

Edward R. Pike

J Perina London: Van Nostrand 1972 pp 315 price £6 This book brings under one cover in a clear presentation much of a stream of work which has appeared in the literature over the last decade or so, concerned with the interrelation between classical and quantum theories of optical coherence. Only in the 11th of 18 chapters, however, is the optical field quantized so that there is at first a very extensive treatment of classical results.

Physics Bulletin•May 1, 1973•0 citations

Neoclassical light – An assessment of the voyage into Hilbert space

Harry J. Kimble

I thank Rodger Walser and his colleagues for organizing this conference to celebrate George \nSudarshan’s birthday and landmark achievements in science. It is an honor for me to be here and \nalso a great pleasure to be back in Austin to join the chorus of the FOGS. \nI would like begin with a brief historical introduction and then turn to topics that we \nhaven’t heard so much about thus far in the symposium, namely experiments in Quantum Optics. \nLet me remind you that blackbody radiation has had a profound impact on physics since the time \nof Planck. However, even in more modern times after the development of quantum mechanics \nand quantum electrodynamics, one really did not know how to describe the underlying field \nfluctuations as required for diverse interference phenomena. Emil Wolf laid critical foundations \nfor this enterprise with his theory of classical coherence developed in collaboration with Max \nBorn in their classic book Principles of Optics. \nA great challenge to the physics community was the experiment by R. H. Brown and R. \nQ. Twiss in 1956 [1], which led to a confusing and controversial time for photons and fields. In \n1958 Leonard Mandel helped to resolve the controversy by explaining how light fluctuations are \nconverted to photocurrents in the detection process, albeit in with a classical description of the \nfield [2]. The confusion arose from the effort to understand, on the one hand, interference \nphenomena that are expressed in terms of the complex amplitude of the electromagnetic field, for \nwhich only a classical description was available. On the other hand, quantum electrodynamics \nhad been developed based upon energy eigenstates (i.e., Fock states) with photons as quanta. It \nwas really difficult to understand how the electric and magnetic fields behave in terms of these \nquantum states. For example, the expectation value of any electromagnetic field is zero in a Fock \nstate. The confusion was compounded by the historic invention of the maser and laser and by the \npressing need for quantum theories of the dynamical processes of these and other laboratory \nadvances.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Nov 1, 2009•3 citations

Introduction to Quantum Optics: From the Semi-classical Approach to Quantized Light

G. Grynberg, Alain Aspect, Claude Fabre +1 more

Introductory textbook for advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students, covering a number of important subjects in quantum optics

•Sep 1, 2010•266 citations

Notes on the hippies who saved physics

Jack Sarfatti

During some heavy cleaning, I happened to notice Sam Schweber’s review of David Kaiser’s book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (Physics Today, September 2011, page 59).I was a graduate student at Brandeis University in 1960–62, but I quit to work in the defense industry. I did so mainly because Schweber and others discouraged my claim that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect implied a faster-than-light information transfer. That was years before Bell’s theorem. I had gotten the idea from reading David Bohm’s Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, 1951) in my senior year at Cornell University and David Inglis’s 1961 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics about the tau–theta puzzle. Schweber and the others basically told me to “shut up and calculate.” I finished my PhD at the University of California, Riverside, in August 1969 after a master’s at UC San Diego in 1967.Schweber’s review gives the false impression in the first paragraph that Elizabeth Rauscher’s Fundamental Fysiks Group was merely “a small group of graduate students.” That is a gross misrepresentation of Kaiser’s clear text to the contrary. Most of the members, including department head Geoffrey Chew, Henry Stapp, John Clauser, Nick Herbert, and me, already had PhDs. In addition, Herbert was not a “peripheral member” of the group but a core member from the beginning. And finally, Schweber’s claim that Bell’s theorem was not obscure prior to 1975 is falsified by the statistics that Kaiser presents very clearly in his book.© 2013 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Jan 30, 2013•0 citations

Quantum Optics: An Introduction, 2nd Revised and Enlarged Edition

W. Vogel, Dirk‐Gunnar Welsch, Sascha Wallentowitz

•Jun 1, 2001•4 citations
I thank Rodger Walser and his colleagues for organizing this conference to celebrate George \nSudarshan’s birthday and landmark achievements in science. It is an honor for me to be here and \nalso a great pleasure to be back in Austin to join the chorus of the FOGS. \nI would like begin with a brief historical introduction and then turn to topics that we \nhaven’t heard so much about thus far in the symposium, namely experiments in Quantum Optics. \nLet me remind you that blackbody radiation has had a profound impact on physics since the time \nof Planck. However, even in more modern times after the development of quantum mechanics \nand quantum electrodynamics, one really did not know how to describe the underlying field \nfluctuations as required for diverse interference phenomena. Emil Wolf laid critical foundations \nfor this enterprise with his theory of classical coherence developed in collaboration with Max \nBorn in their classic book Principles of Optics. \nA great challenge to the physics community was the experiment by R. H. Brown and R. \nQ. Twiss in 1956 [1], which led to a confusing and controversial time for photons and fields. In \n1958 Leonard Mandel helped to resolve the controversy by explaining how light fluctuations are \nconverted to photocurrents in the detection process, albeit in with a classical description of the \nfield [2]. The confusion arose from the effort to understand, on the one hand, interference \nphenomena that are expressed in terms of the complex amplitude of the electromagnetic field, for \nwhich only a classical description was available. On the other hand, quantum electrodynamics \nhad been developed based upon energy eigenstates (i.e., Fock states) with photons as quanta. It \nwas really difficult to understand how the electric and magnetic fields behave in terms of these \nquantum states. For example, the expectation value of any electromagnetic field is zero in a Fock \nstate. The confusion was compounded by the historic invention of the maser and laser and by the \npressing need for quantum theories of the dynamical processes of these and other laboratory \nadvances.
During some heavy cleaning, I happened to notice Sam Schweber’s review of David Kaiser’s book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (Physics Today, September 2011, page 59).I was a graduate student at Brandeis University in 1960–62, but I quit to work in the defense industry. I did so mainly because Schweber and others discouraged my claim that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect implied a faster-than-light information transfer. That was years before Bell’s theorem. I had gotten the idea from reading David Bohm’s Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, 1951) in my senior year at Cornell University and David Inglis’s 1961 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics about the tau–theta puzzle. Schweber and the others basically told me to “shut up and calculate.” I finished my PhD at the University of California, Riverside, in August 1969 after a master’s at UC San Diego in 1967.Schweber’s review gives the false impression in the first paragraph that Elizabeth Rauscher’s Fundamental Fysiks Group was merely “a small group of graduate students.” That is a gross misrepresentation of Kaiser’s clear text to the contrary. Most of the members, including department head Geoffrey Chew, Henry Stapp, John Clauser, Nick Herbert, and me, already had PhDs. In addition, Herbert was not a “peripheral member” of the group but a core member from the beginning. And finally, Schweber’s claim that Bell’s theorem was not obscure prior to 1975 is falsified by the statistics that Kaiser presents very clearly in his book.© 2013 American Institute of Physics.