Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarifications around degeneracy #4

Open
kavanase opened this issue Aug 30, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Clarifications around degeneracy #4

kavanase opened this issue Aug 30, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@kavanase
Copy link
Contributor

I think this should be the other way around?
Degeneracy for the s -> s+1 transition should be g_{s+1}/g_s. Should check in the code that this is correctly implemented.
image

Also, there is one degeneracy but two levels provided by the user? Which one does it correspond to?
If it's both, maybe the user should have the option to set g1 and g2

@xw-w
Copy link
Contributor

xw-w commented Aug 30, 2024

Hi! The degeneracy term comes in when deriving the emission coefficients based on the principle of detailed balance (for defects with multiple levels):
Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 22 15 33

As the emission coefficients are proportional to either g_s/g_{s+1} or g_{s+1}/g_s depending on the capture process, it's easier to input a ratio of g=g_s/g_{s+1}

And in the source code, g or 1/g is properly used in the corresponding equations

But thanks for asking and I'll add more details about this point in tutorials

@kavanase
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, thanks! Yes I think it would be good to clarify this.
Is s equivalent to the charge state q here, or no? And if so, is s = q1, or q2 etc?

Also, I still think there should be two degeneracy factors if we have two levels (three defect states)? Like g_q1/g_q2 and g_q2/g_q3?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants