Rudolph Marcus died last week. He was 102. There is a nice obituary in The New York Times. He was best known for his theory of electron transfer, for which he was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1992.
Although the theory was proposed for electron transfer in a polar solvent it applies to a wide range of other systems, where two quantum states are coupled to one another and to an environment. One example is for Forster transfer of excitons between molecules, which is central to photosynthesis.
I will give a physics perspective, based on a talk I gave in Slovenia back in 2013. Slides are here.
Basically, Marcus proposed an effective Hamiltonian for two diabatic states and calculated a transition rate in a limit that is relevant to most chemical contexts.
The Hamiltonian can be viewed as the spin-boson model, in which a two-level system is coupled to a bath of harmonic oscillators.
[The dense book by Weiss on Quantum Dissipative Systems makes the connection explicit in detail. A more accessible treatment may be chapter 16 in the book Chemical Dynamics in Condensed Phases by Nitzan.]
The Hamiltonian is
This defines a spectral density, which is important for quantum decoherence, but not so much here, except it defines a timescale that determines the classical limit, which Marcus assumed.
I consider this to be one of the most important equations in chemical physics, particularly for the understanding and design of functional materials.
Aside. Much of this is equivalent to Holstein's 1959 treatment of incoherent polaron transport (see Mahan, Many-body physics).
A key experiment by John R. Miller, Lidia T. Calcaterra and Gerhard L. Closs in 1984 showed how good the theory was and how its predictions were counter-intuitive. The authors considered a family of molecules that allowed them to tune epsilon, the energy difference between the two electronic states. [On the graph below epsilon = - Delta G].
"The quadratic equation predicts that electron transfer reactions will occur more slowly the larger the driving force of the reaction is. This phenomenon received its own name, “the inverted region.” To a chemist, the phenomenon is just as unexpected as when a skier finds himself gliding more slowly down a slope the steeper it is."
The theory implies an important design principle for functional materials: if optimising functionality means maximising the reaction rate, then tune the energy difference epsilon to equal the reorganisation energy E_R.
The theory illustrates two important aspects of emergence: effective theories and universality. Many different systems can be described by the same theory. The environment may involve many degrees of freedom and its coupling to the system is characterised by many parameters (the M_alpha above). However, only one parameter matters, the reorganisation energy.
For Australians, there is some ambivalence about the way Marcus' name is often solely associated with electron transfer theory. We often refer to it as Marcus-Hush or Hush-Marcus theory because Noel Hush did similar work around the same time. Some of the history is recounted here by Ian Rae and Jeff Reimers. There are also subtle debates about whether the electron transfer is adiabatic or non-adiabatic.
My only personal interaction with Marcus was in 2011 when I visited the chemistry department at Caltech. Marcus kindly took me to lunch at the faculty club, along with his research group. Then he was 84 years old. He kept publishing papers until he died.






No comments:
Post a Comment