Talk:Jaynes–Cummings model

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. This article was accepted from this draft on 13 December 2017 by reviewer I dream of horses (talk · contribs). Physics Low‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of Jaynes-Cummings model was merged into Jaynes–Cummings model on August 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

ħν?

Im not sure about this, so i don't want to make any changes myself, but it seems strange that ν (nu), generally used as the symbol for frequency is being used to represent an angular frequency. Wouldn't ω₁ and ω₂ or something similar be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.54.172 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it is worrysome

I was also thinking about that. One should use different notations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid2053 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Standard

ω is the standard character used in the literature. This article seems pretty mess too. If I get the time I'm inclined to rewrite this. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minus missing

Okay, I have no idea how editing stuff works, but comapared to Cohen-Tannoudji there should be a minus in the arctan(). So someone might want to change: arctan(...) -> arctan(- ...)

134.60.83.75 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

It seems the Jaynes-Cummings model page is essentially a duplicate of this page, with a misspelling (“-” instead of “–”). The content is slightly different, but I am pretty certain the same model is being referred to on both pages. The title figure is even the same. There is some non-duplicate content, though, so that might be merged in somehow, and notation would probably have to be made consistent throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYT (talk • contribs) 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I merged the two articles. I also shifted the "Articles for creation" tag here because it was originally C-class. Not sure if its the right procedure but I think once this article is cleaned up it should be C-class too. AquaDTRS (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup edits

I made a pass at trying to remove some of the more verbose language and interesting, well-sourced digressions that are nonetheless not really relevant to understanding the mathematical model itself, but these were reverted about 5 minutes later.

Do other readers of the article find these digressions useful? I took the cleanup tag as a "no".

Here's a rundown of the most obvious changes that seem absolutely uncontroversial:

• Removing reference to developments in 1985 from the section about the introduction of the theoretical model in 1963
• Removing duplicated description of the difficulties that led to an experimental model coming only 20 years later
• Linking vacuum state instead of vacuum

I was careful to mark those edits that did substantially change the content of the article as non-minor (including those that removed the well-sourced digressions), so it's frustrating to have them bulk-reverted with the edit summary "Reverting edits where a lot of sourced content is removed", even aside from the more contentious point that just because it's sourced doesn't mean it adds value to the article.

Maybe somebody more qualified / patient than I am can make a pass at this. Thanks! ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]