Alphabeta Math
Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Source-dependent versus uniform Zeeman shifts

PDF p. 3: Paragraph following Eq. (11); PDF p. 1: Introduction, Kerr-anharmonicity background (local conditional calculation)

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice, Countable Choice and Dependent Choice, and take the finite angular-momentum emitter model with its phenomenological diagonal lift. Its orthonormal states are ∣J,m⟩, where J labels a retained spin block and m its magnetic state. For a transition from ∣J,m⟩ to an existing state ∣J−1,m+δ⟩, with δ∈{−1,0,1} and real lift strength Δ, define transition frequency as source energy minus destination energy in units with ℏ=1.

The lift with level shifts ΔJm changes this transition frequency by Δ[m−(J−1)δ]. For fixed J and δ, this shift differs for distinct allowed source labels m when Δ≠0. By contrast, a diagonal perturbation assigning the level shift Δm to every ∣J,m⟩ changes the transition frequency by −δΔ, independent of m. Thus this latter shift alone supplies no source-label distinction through transition frequency within a fixed polarization channel δ. Neither calculation alone determines the full environmental record.

Independently, assume Countable Choice and the prescribed one-mode Kerr model on the finite occupation span, with real parameters ω,K, occupation states ∣n⟩ for integers n≥0, and assigned energies En=ωn+K2n(n−1). The adjacent downward transition frequencies gn=En−En−1=ω+K(n−1) satisfy gn+1−gn=K for every n≥1. Hence K≠0 separates each pair of consecutive downward transition frequencies; when K=0, all these frequencies equal ω. This case uses Countable Choice for its Fock-space supplier and does not use the finite-emitter or regulated-bath hypotheses. These energy differences alone specify no environmental record or recovery performance.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

The finite emitter has an orthonormal magnetic basis, an unperturbed Hamiltonian diagonal in that basis, and the postulated lift assigns energy ΔJm to ∣J,m⟩. The postulate treats this lift as a model assumption. Phenomenological angular-momentum degeneracy lift

[F2]

For a diagonal lift, the contribution to a directed transition energy is the lift eigenvalue at its source minus that at its destination. Calibrated diagonal lifts and transition phase differences

[A1]

Assume the Axiom of Choice, Countable Choice and Dependent Choice used by the emitter model's regulated bath construction. The Axiom of Choice The Axiom of Countable Choice (AC_ω) The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an ℕ-indexed chain

[F3]

In the separate one-mode model, the prescribed Kerr Hamiltonian assigns En=ωn+K2n(n−1) and adjacent downward gaps gn=ω+K(n−1) for n≥1, with real ω,K. Bosonic loss, Kerr shifts and finite-code comparison scope

[A2]

Assume Countable Choice for the Fock-space construction in the separate one-mode case. The Axiom of Countable Choice (AC_ω)

Proof

Given: For the emitter case, the finite emitter, retained source and destination states, real Δ, and the two specified diagonal perturbations. Independently, for the one-mode case, the Kerr model with real ω,K and Countable Choice.

Goal: Calculate the emitter transition-frequency shifts and their dependence on m, and compare consecutive downward gaps in the independent Kerr case.

1.1F1F2A1algebra

By [F1], the first lift assigns ΔJm to the source and Δ(J−1)(m+δ) to the destination. The source-minus-destination rule [F2] therefore gives Δ[Jm−(J−1)(m+δ)]=Δ[m−(J−1)δ]. For fixed J,δ, subtracting the shifts for source labels m1,m2 gives Δ(m1−m2), which is nonzero if both factors are nonzero.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

For the second perturbation, the source and destination shifts are respectively Δm and Δ(m+δ). By [F2] their difference is −δΔ, which is the same for every allowed m at fixed δ. Consequently the perturbation's transition-frequency shift cannot by itself distinguish those source labels. This calculation specifies no environmental state or measurement, so it implies no stronger claim about the complete record.

3.1F3A2algebra∎

In the one-mode case of [F3] under [A2], gn+1=ω+Kn and gn=ω+K(n−1) for every integer n≥1, so subtraction gives gn+1−gn=K. If K≠0 these two frequencies differ; if K=0 the formula gives gn=ω for every n≥1. Only the prescribed energy assignments are used: no environmental state, measurement or noise channel is supplied by this calculation.

Source notes

The article describes the first shift as distinguishing decay pathways. The calculation above establishes the stated source dependence of their frequencies; how much information a particular environment acquires requires additional dynamical and measurement assumptions. The independent Kerr calculation is proved here from the prescribed one-mode model.

Depends on

Used by · 1

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.

Sources