-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
Add presn.Yoshida_2016 model #330
Conversation
Cross-check with Yoshida_2016 paper (Fig.5): Using a script here I plot the image |
From the figure, it looks like the NU_E and NU_X rates are almost identical (both solid lines overlap); while the NU_E_BAR and NU_X_BAR are both almost identical to each other (both dashed lines overlap), and a factor of ~4 lower than the solid lines. However, physically, this doesn’t seem right at all: The main emission mechanism is pair production; so NU_E should be very similar to NU_E_BAR, NU_X should be very similar to NU_X_BAR, and there’s no a priori reason why NU_E and NU_X should be similar. Therefore, I suspect that NU_E_BAR and NU_X have been mixed up here. Looking at the README, the input files use the order NU_E, NU_E_BAR, NU_X, NU_X_BAR; while the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me now; but let’s add this to the test_presn_rates.py
to have at least some basic checks that the model initializes successfully and produces reasonable rates.
Co-authored-by: Jost Migenda <jost.migenda@kcl.ac.uk>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good; thanks a lot!
Closes #215