4.6 Article

Fundamental limitations on photoisomerization from thermodynamic resource theories

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 101, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042116

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, an NSF Physics Frontiers Center [PHY-1125565]
  2. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [GBMF-2644]
  3. NSF [NSF PHY-1125915]
  4. UC Berkeley College of Chemistry
  5. Kavli Energy NanoSciences Institute
  6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, CPIMS Program Early Career Research Program [DE-FOA-0002019]
  7. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small, out-of-equilibrium, and quantum systems defy simple thermodynamic expressions. Such systems are exemplified by molecular switches, which exchange heat with a bath. These molecules can photoisomerize, or change conformation, or switch, on absorbing light. The photoisomerization probability depends on kinetic details that couple the molecule's energetics to its dissipation. Therefore, a simple, general, thermodynamic-style bound on the photoisomerization probability seems out of reach. We derive such a bound using a resource theory. The resource-theory framework is a set of mathematical tools, developed in quantum information theory, used to generalize thermodynamics to small and quantum settings. From this toolkit has been derived a generalization of the second law, the thermomajorization preorder. We use thermomajorization to upper-bound the photoisomerization probability. Then, we compare the bound with an equilibrium prediction and with a Lindbladian model. We identify a realistic parameter regime in which the Lindbladian evolution saturates the thermomajorization bound. We also quantify the energy coherence in the electronic degree of freedom, and we argue that this coherence cannot promote photoisomerization. This work illustrates how quantum-information-theoretic thermodynamics can elucidate complex quantum processes in nature, experiments, and synthetics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据