Response to “Comment on ‘Frequency-domain stimulated and spontaneous light emission signals at molecular junctions’” [J. Chem. Phys. 142, 137101 (2015)]
Abstract
In a recent work [U. Harbola, B. K. Agrawalla, and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. 141, 074107 (2014)], we have presented a superoperator (Liouville space) diagrammatic formulation of spontaneous and stimulated optical signals from current-carrying molecular junctions. We computed the diagrams that contribute to the spontaneous light emission SLE (fluorescence and Raman) signal using a diagrammatic method which clearly distinguishes between the Raman and the fluorescence contributions. We pointed out some discrepancies with the work of Galperin, Ratner and Nitzan (GRN) [M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner and, A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 144109 (2009)]. In their response [M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner and A. Nitzan, "Comment on' Frequency-domain stimulated and spontaneous light emission signals at molecular junctions'" [J. Chem. Phys. 141, 074107 (2014)], J. Chem. Phys. 142, 137101 (2015)] to our work, GRN have argued that there are no differences in the choice of Raman diagrams in both works. Here we reply to their points and show where the differences exist.
Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.