Talk:Roy J. Glauber

Untitled
For the past ten years, Roy has been a vital participant in the annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony. By spontaneous tradition, the Ig audience throws paper airplanes at the stage during the entire ceremony (and the people on stage waft some of them right back). The airplanes accumulate so rapidly that it is necessary to have two people spend the entire ceremony sweeping them off. Harvard physics professor Roy Glauber has nobly, and stylishly, swept the stage for ten long years. Today, October 4, 2005, he was announced as the winner of a Nobel Physics Prize. from http://improbable.typepad.com/improbable_research_whats/2005/10/sweeping_succes.html :-) bogdan | Talk 11:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

On the Ig Nobel page, it says that he is Keeper of the Mop as opposed to Broom, like is says on this page... Which is it?

Glauber was not awarded the Nobel prize for the "notion and mathematics of coherent states" as the article says, but for the mathematical description of optical coherence and the theory of photodetection. These are different subjects.--J S Lundeen 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobel prize
Can someone knowledgeable please put more information about his nobel prize? As it currently stands, it's just mentioned as a footnote to his Ig Nobel duties. --Storkk 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Considerable controversy"?
I was surprised to find this recent and very one-sided addition to the article summary:


 * However, there is considerable controversy regarding this award, as E. C. George Sudarshan was ignored. Also the Sudarshan representation, which Glauber renamed as the P-representation, was conveniently renamed the Sudarshan-Glauber representation, later the Glauber-Sudarshan representation, and now has become the Glauber representation. But what's in a name? Sudarshan's representation by any other name will smell as sweet.

It turns out that this "considerable controversy" (something I'd never heard about until today) has been publicly addressed by InsideHigherEd, Seed, and The Harvard Crimson. I'm not sure this belongs in Glauber's article--the complaint reflects actions by the Nobel Committee rather than any wrongdoing by Glauber. Experience with other controversies suggests, however, that removing this material will only result in its re-insertion by another partisan. Writing it up dispassionately seemed the best course. betsythedevine 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It also turns out that Harvard Crimson did not 'address' the issue 'publicly'.It merely QUOTED others[none from Harvard] in the article.I am sure even the Nobel committe never heard of Sudharshan or the controversy[whose work Glauber criticised and later acknowledged,who knows what else] till they acknowledged Glauber for Sudharshan's work.That's something,a common undercurrent. - BengalTiger


 * Two months later, somebody has removed the "controversy" section from Glauber's bio--probably the right decision. The mini-uproar seems to have died down without any echo--and it was never a Glauber controversy anyway, really a Sudarshan vs. Nobel Committee controversy. betsythedevine 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The same person removed it from the Sudarshan article. Should it be reinstated there ? Tintin (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to let it stay removed from both places. IMO, the fact that Sudarshan did major work in an area where a Nobel was awarded is notable. The fact that Sudarshan and a very few other people complained post-facto about the 2006 Nobel Prize isn't something I'd want in my bio, if I were Sudarshan. betsythedevine 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, someone has added it back :-) Tintin (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As of 2017, there is still this remark about Sudarshan in there, even if only in an abbreviated form. I think it is totally misleading, since the Nobel prize citation was phrased like this: "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2005 was divided, one half awarded to Roy J. Glauber "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence", the other half jointly to John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch ". So the official citation does not mention work on the P representation (which, I believe, would never merit a Nobel prize). What stands out in Glauber's work is the theory of photodetection and joint photon measurement, which enabled a discussion of the photon statistics. The P representation is completely incidental.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.35.14 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Stolen Nobel
Glauber's Nobel prize medal was apparently stolen in a burglary reported in the news today. Is that worthy of inclusion in the article? --96.233.95.239 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing 2005 Ig Nobel?
The Ig Nobel ceremony was held in October, and the "genuine" Nobel in December. How could he have missed the Ig Nobel ceremony because "he was being awarded his real Nobel Prize at the time"?--220.232.232.66 (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Glauber Physics", PHYS E-26
Roy J. Glauber was well-known among high school science teachers in Eastern Massachusetts during the late 1980's when I taught at Bishop Stang High School in North Dartmouth MA. His course at the Harvard Extension School, Physics E-26, was referred to as "Glauber Physics". In the spring term of 1989, I escorted a group of students on the 75-minute trip to Cambridge every Thursday. In my opinion, his ability to communicate and fascinate is exceptional. See:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=qOsSCUXn1SUC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=glauber+physics+E-26+harvard+extension+school&source=bl&ots=QFxMxwqZlv&sig=7v7XiYefB5GF6AQPh2mkp5n2Gx8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0tYhU-rAGueayAGc6IG4Bg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

I leave it to more experienced contributors to decide if +/or how this may be include in the article.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roy J. Glauber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320234139/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=4430ef80-19e7-4a1f-93ab-f1861c2d5753& to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=4430ef80-19e7-4a1f-93ab-f1861c2d5753&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406103546/http://www.fi.edu/winners/show_results.faw?gs=&ln=&fn=&keyword=&subject=&award=MICH+&sy=1967&ey=1997&name=Submit to http://www.fi.edu/winners/show_results.faw?gs=&ln=&fn=&keyword=&subject=&award=MICH+&sy=1967&ey=1997&name=Submit
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517124134/http://www.aps.org/praw/heineman/96winner.cfm to http://www.aps.org/praw/heineman/96winner.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not Glauber's controversy
This Sudarshan concern of his failure to be recognized for his work only arose after the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics honorees were announced. The work in question done by Glauber, recognized for creating the Physics field of Quantum Optics, was done in 1963. There is no found record of Sudarshan voicing objection to Glauber’s work or achievements prior to the Nobel Prize Selection Committee announcing on October 4th, 2005 who was to be honored at the December 10th ceremony in Stockholm. Objections appeared on Wikipedia in August 2006. Up to this Wikipedia edit, there was no mention here of any controversy, or the fact that Sudarshan felt slighted by Glauber’s work. Suddenly in 2006 an IP user from India wrote a short paragraph in the opening paragraph of the page. So, all this began with “Conflict of Interest,” as clearly this edit was likely added or influenced by a close relative, friend or former colleague of Sudarshan. The following IP address location clearly indicates that he/she was working from India and the ISP organization was: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR). Of note, Sudarshan also worked at the TIFR earlier in his career. Within a few hours an editor appears and a new section is added with extensive details, I doubt the edit of this editor as well, because in the short time period between the two posts one would not be in a position to do that extensive research; so maybe there were some backdoor links between them? Most of the references supporting the whole controversy are fake and bogus, and there are not any links published by any western media, rather Indian media exclusively has been used to highlight what they report as an issue. It’s interesting that this so called “issue” was never given credibility or carried by any traditional western publications. The Harvard Crimson, the one which has been cited, is a student run university newspaper, and they simply highlighted the aforementioned Indian newspaper article. Western press did not see this story worthy of publication (see below re: The New York Times, and a letter Sudarshan claimed he sent to them). Inside Higher Ed reference (December 7th 2005) explicitly explains the matter, “The Nobel report explicitly notes that, though Sudarshan took Glauber’s work to the next level, Glauber’s seminal work appeared first, months before Sudarshan’s in 1963.” Additionally, the article states “Sudarshan acknowledges that Glauber’s work came first, but suggests that his own might better fit the achievements described by the committee. Sudarshan also adds that he believes the committee “did their work diligently and with care.” The “Controversy regarding Nobel Prize” section that has been posted on Glauber’s Wiki page goes on to say: “In an unpublished letter to The New York Times, Sudarshan calls the “Glauber–Sudarshan representation” a misnomer, adding that "literally all subsequent theoretic developments in the field of Quantum Optics make use of Sudarshan's work”— essentially, asserting that he had developed the breakthrough.” The references # 22 has absolutely no credibility. What credibility does an unpublished letter to The New York Times highlighted in the sighted article provide? And besides that, where's the proof that it was ever even written or provided? A sent letter, that isn’t published, isn’t proof of anything. The only thing that this might prove is that the New York Times recipient didn't find enough relevancy or credibility in the letter to use it. One has to also wonder whether this letter ever existed, as its contents weren’t ever shared publicly, or published by Sudarshan prior to his passing. Given the extremely high honor of the Nobel Prize, and its inherent competitive nature, past selections have been subject to controversy and criticism across many years. This is not uncommon. Let’s have a look at the controversy regarding the Physics prize. The point here is that people who feel they were treated unfairly by the Nobel Selection Committee already have their grievance highlighted on the main Noble Prize Controversy Page, not on the page of the person or persons who won The Prize. Let’s talk about the Nobel Prize of 1974. In 1974 Martin Ryle and Antony Hewish won the Physics Nobel Prize and Jocelyn Bell Burnell criticized the committee for not recognizing her work and not giving her the prize. But here, while this is understandably noted on the Wiki page of Burnell, we can see that there’s no mention of any controversy on the Wiki pages of either winner: Martin Ryle and Antony Hewish. Additionally, Sudarshan has claimed that he was slighted for the 1999 Nobel Prize, specifically the work that was done by Harvard Physicists Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow. This shows a clear Sudarshan pattern. Here, his concern appears on the above-mentioned Nobel Prize Controversy Page, but not on the Wiki pages of Weinberg or Glashow. The same is true for other such “Controversy” years. Please also read the previous posts currently appearing on this Talk tab for the views of other editors who, going back to 2006, have also previously agreed and supported the fact that such content was not factually supportable, and was not appropriate to appear on Glauber’s Wiki page. As betsythedevine appropriately stated: “Two months later, somebody has removed the "controversy" section from Glauber's bio--probably the right decision. The mini-uproar seems to have died down without any echo--and it was never a Glauber controversy anyway, really a Sudarshan vs. Nobel Committee controversy. betsythedevine 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC).” In a nutshell, the controversy should not be displayed on the Glauber’s page. If the family, friends or colleagues of Sudarshan want to highlight this issue, they can expand it further on his page or on the sub-section of “Noble Prize Controversies, Physics Section, 2005”. Or if they’re determined, they can even create a new page, if Wikipedia allows, but it should not be displayed on Glauber’s page. It is not Glauber’s issue. This is a concern that Sudarshan had with the Nobel Prize Selection Committee, so Glauber shouldn’t be dragged down for a concern that he’s not responsible for. Glauber, a recognized creator of the physics field of Quantum Optics, a Michelson Medal (1985) and Heineman Prize winner (1986), and the selected and recognized Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2005), is currently being discredited by posts highlighting the unsupported sentiments of another person, and the fact that Sudarshan felt slighted because he wasn’t recognized. Again, not an issue that Glauber in any way created or shares any responsibility for. This Sudarshan grievance should not appear on Roy J. Glauber’s Wiki page. Thank you. Sternlens (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A consensus needs to be built for this matter of vandalism
"The Wikipedia page of a selected Nobel Prize honoree shouldn't be the place for the family or friends of Mr. Sudarshan, who wasn't selected, to continue to air their grievances. The Nobel Prize physics selection committee made their decision in 2005".Sternlens (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A permanent solution and consensus need to be reached
I have been posting on the talk page with much detail and you guys are consistently adding the controversy section without bothering to read the talk page in the first place. More recently Hey man im josh  reinstated the controversy section saying it is properly sourced. I am not saying the content is not properly sourced, what I am saying is it should not be displayed on Glauber's page. Further details are in the above section.

Please read the sections I added above and comment on your views.


 * 158.144.51.80 (talk · contribs)
 * 99.174.173.241 (talk · contribs)
 * M.Bitton (talk · contribs)
 * Kpddg (talk · contribs)
 * Drmies (talk · contribs)
 * Praxidicae (talk · contribs)
 * Hey man im josh

Sternlens (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I can come up with a permanent solution, but you won't like it, and that is to semi-protect the article (to stop the decade-old flow of vandalism from IP editors) and to block you from editing the article. I suppose one could say you've been posting here with great detail, but what I see is one impossibly long and dense paragraph, and one quoted comment (?) whose relevance is invisible to me. So pardon me for not plowing through the lengthy "above" section in its entirety, though I will note that fortunately there is some discussion of sources, and looking again at the Inside Higher Ed article is probably a good way to try and maybe edit this down. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"RfC: Please comment on the controversy section"
Should the "Controversy section removed or kept? Sternlens (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither--it should likely be shortened/rewritten, with the Inside Higher Ed article, the most reliable source in the bunch, as the guide. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge - The entire section is too big and the notable coverage should be folded into Awards and honors. For WP:BLP we should avoid WP:CRITS so an entire criticism section should be avoided. Nemov (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Shorten as above, definitely shouldn't be one of the largest sections in his article.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Shorten per Drmies AND semi-protect the page. The section should also NOT be titled "Controversy", per WP:CRITS. PianoDan (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge With awards section. It seems reasonable to mention the controversy but it does not need that much attention. Discussing it in so much depth makes it seem un-NPOV. A shortend version merged into the awards section makes sense to me. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reduce and Merge - this is WP:UNDUE by amount of text and by being a section. It seems generally not a ‘controversy’ and this simply has far, far less in coverage and biographical significance than the award itself so anything said should be adjacent to the text about the award and shorter than that.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge the controversy is only about the Nobel Prize, it makes sense to merge it with awards EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)