Hi, so this is one of the graphs which I obtained (blue) compared to the red one which is the experimentally obtained graph. Now the thing is when I manually define Gamma = 0.2 which was defined as (2 * e * kb * T)/(Ic * hbar) in your answer I get a great correlation, as compared to when plug in the actual formula.

So I was wondering how could I explain this behaviour

So I'm using T = 70k and Ic = 500 uA , that gives Gamma around 0.006

Just to clarify, the first blue curve is for $\Gamma=.2$ while the second blue curve is for $\Gamma=.006$ and the red curves are the same experimental data?

yes exactly

Actually, just realized it’s the opposite, your first curve is $\Gamma=.006$ since it is less smoothed out. Are you sure you used the correct formula for noise? For $\Gamma=.006$, $\sqrt{4\Gamma}\sim 1.5$ which is suspiciously close to your $.2$…

Yeah yeah my bad the first one is gamma = 0.006 and the second one is gamma = 0.2. So I was basically asking that using the formula for gamma in terms of T I got it as 0.006 which is not a great representation of the experimental result.