Selecting the information content of two-dimensional Raman spectra in liquids

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 119, Issue 16, 2003, Pages 8500-8510

  Ma, Ao ^a   Stratt, Richard M ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); DISSOLUTION; MIXTURES; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY; SOLUTIONS; TWO DIMENSIONAL;

CARBON SULFIDE; NONLINEAR COUPLING; TWO DIMENSIONAL RAMAN SPECTRA;

LIQUIDS;

EID: 0242593995     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1611873     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Y. Tanimura and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 9496 (1993).
2. S. Mukamel, A. Piryatinski, and V. Chernyak, Acc. Chem. Res. 32, 145 (1999).
3. G. R. Fleming, D. A. Blank, M. Cho, and A. Tokmakoff, in Ultrafast Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy, edited by M. D. Fayer (Dekker, New York, 2001).
4. T. Steffen, J. T. Fourkas, and K. Duppen, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 7364 (1996).
5. B. M. Ladanyi and S. Klein, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 1552 (1996).
6. A. Tokmakoff, M. J. Lang, X. J. Jordanides, and G. R. Fleming, Chem. Phys. 233, 231 (1998).
7. K. Okumura and Y. Tanimura, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 1687 (1997).
8. K. Okumura and Y. Tanimura, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 2267 (1997).
9. K. Okumura and Y. Tanimura, Chem. Phys. Lett. 278, 175 (1997).
10. T. Steffen and K. Duppen, Chem. Phys. Lett. 290, 229 (1998).
11. V. Chernyak and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 5812 (1998).
12. A. Ma and R. M. Stratt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1004 (2000).
13. A. Ma and R. M. Stratt, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 4962 (2002).
14. T. I. C. Jansen, J. G. Snijders, and K. Duppen, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 10910 (2001).
15. T. I. C. Jansen, K.Duppen, and J. G. Snijders, Phys. Rev. B 67, 134206 (2003).
16. S. Saito and I. Ohmine (preprint, 2003).
17. S. Saito and I. Ohmine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 207401 (2002).
18. S. Saito and I. Ohmine, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 240 (1998).
19. A. Ma and R. M. Stratt, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 4972 (2002).
20. R. L. Murry, J. T. Fourkas, and T. Keyes, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 7913 (1998).
21. T. Keyes and J. T. Fourkas, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 287 (2000).
22. R. A. Denny and D. R. Reichman, Phys. Rev. E 63, 065101(R) (2001).
23. R. A. Denny and D. R. Reichman, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 1987 (2002).
24. J. S. Cao, S. L. Yang, and J. L. Wu, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 3760 (2002).
25. J. Kim and T. Keyes, Phys. Rev. E 65, 061102 (2002).
26. R. M. Stratt, Acc. Chem. Res. 28, 201 (1995).
27. 2, see Refs. 28-33.
28. L. J. Kaufman, J. Y. Heo, L. D. Ziegler, and G. R. Fleming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 207402 (2002).
29. L. J. Kaufman, D. A. Blank, and G. R. Fleming, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 2312 (2001).
30. D. A. Blank, L. J. Kaufman, and G. R. Fleming, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 771 (2000).
31. K. J. Kubarych, C. J. Milne, and R. J. D. Miller, Chem. Phys. Lett. 369, 635 (2003).
32. K. J. Kubarych, C. J. Milne, S. Lin, V. Astinov, and R. J. D. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 2016 (2002).
33. O. Golonzka, N. Demirdöven, M. Khalil, and A. Tokmakoff, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 9893 (2000).
34. 2 do seem to hint at the presence of an echo at very low temperatures. See Ref. 16.
35. B. M. Ladanyi and Y. Q. Liang, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 6325 (1995).
36. L. C. Geiger and B. M. Ladanyi, Chem. Phys. Lett. 19, 413 (1989)
37. L. C. Geiger and B. M. Ladanyi, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 6588 (1988)
38. L. C. Geiger and B. M. Ladanyi, 87, 191 (1987)
39. B. M. Ladanyi, Chem. Phys. Lett. 121, 357 (1985).
40. R. L. Murry and J. T. Fourkas, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 9726 (1997).
41. A. Ma and R. M. Stratt, Bull. Kor. Chem. Soc. (to be published).
42. M. Buchner, B. M. Ladanyi, and R. M. Stratt, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 8522 (1992).
43. B. M. Ladanyi and R. M. Stratt, J. Phys. Chem. 99, 2502 (1995).
44. We note that Ref. 16 looked for, but was not able to find, any qualitatively significant effects resulting from the use of the presumably more accurate polarizability models employed in Ref. 15.
45. It may be worth emphasizing the difference between the direct dyanmical information we believe we are learning here and the indirect information that one can sometimes deduce by partitioning the coupling to the spectroscopic observable. An insightful molecular-level analysis of the 5th order Raman nonlinear-coupling invariants was published some years ago, in Ref. 20. However, because we are computing projections of our influence spectra, we are now in more of a position to comment on the roles of specific degrees of freedom in the dynamics being observed. In Ref. 20 (and, for that matter, in our own Ref. 38), one cold infer that molecular rotation was important whenever the single-molecule portion of the many-body polarizability was dominant, but there was no way to tell whether it was unimportant in the other cases.
46. As Ref. 20 points out, this analysis would need to be generalized if the molecules had significant nonrigidity.
47. T Steffen and k. Duppen, Chem. Phys. 233, 267 (1998).
48. It is also possible that our neglect of anharmonic-dynamics-induced mode-mode coupling may cause some inaccuracies. We have shown that for the experimental polarization conditions discussed here (which involve the magic angle) the mode-mode coupling induced by the nonlinear-coupling mechanism has no significant effect. The effects of off-diagonal dynamical anharmonicity, however, are less certain.
49. However, see Ref. 17 for an intriguing approach to ascertaining anharmonic effects that does not make use of instantaneous normal modes as a reference.
50. Note Fig. 6 in Ref. 19.
51. R. M. Stratt, in Ultrafast Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy, edited by M. D. Fayer (Dekker, New York, 2001).