Photon probes: initial updates on existing techniques

[kara-mela]

Motivation

Currently, there is hardly any information given on photon probes, e.g. definition and links.

Modification

Added definitions and wikipedia links to the photon probes. Complemented altlabels and relationships.

Result

Information on photon probes further completed.

Contributes to #312

[terencetan-c]

Would it be better to define PaNET01005 - PaNET01015 as 'technique defined by a probe using.....'? Since these terms are techniques and not the probes themselves. Or is the distinction between the two meaningless?

Similarly for PaNET00100, it might be better to emphasise that it is referring to the technique that uses photons rather than the photons themselves. In contrast, the specifier classes would represent the actual probes like x-ray and photon, and the definitions might be more suited for the specifiers.

Also, would it be accurate to say THz photon is a subclass of IR photon? The Wikipedia link states that THz lies within the transition region between microwave and far infrared. Although I suppose PaN facilities don't operate at the microwave level as far as I know, so it might be correct in our context.

[kara-mela]

Good question.
You are right PaNET01005 stands for a technique using IR photon and therefore it would make more sense to describe the technique and not the probe. However, the label of PaNET01005 is "IR photon probe". Therefore, I decided to describe the probe.

When we are touching these topics, I would like to do it properly. Therefore, I see two options

1. Using the labels for probes (e.g. "IR photon probe") and describing the probe as is.
2. Changing the labels to describe techniques (e.g. "IR photon technique") and describing the technique.
   We should discuss this briefly in the next PaNET maintenance meeting.

The source that I found for THz probes (might also be wikipedia) included THz into IR. It seems that I forgot to add this relationship.

[terencetan-c]

Yes, I agree. This ambiguity with the labels was actually one of the motivations for the new structure; the fact that the technique class labels implied the existence of the specifier classes, but the latter wasn't actually defined in PaNET.

I think option 2 makes more sense since that makes clear the distinction between techniques and specifiers (like probes).