Chaos
Feedback | Help | Exit
Chaos
Search:
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
Stochastic resonance: Theory and numerics
We address the phenomenon of stochastic resonance in a noisy bistable system driven by a time-dependent periodic force (not necessarily sinusoidal) and in its two-state approximation. Even for driving...
Next Article
Noise induced complexity: From subthreshold oscillations to spiking in coupled excitable systems
We study the stochastic dynamics of an ensemble of N globally coupled excitable elements. Each element is modeled by a FitzHugh–Nagumo oscillator and is disturbed by independent Gaussian noise. I...

Reaction rate theory: What it was, where is it today, and where is it going?

Chaos 15, 026116 (2005); doi:10.1063/1.1858782

Published 17 June 2005

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

Eli Pollak
Chemical Physics Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel

Peter Talkner
Institut für Physik, Universität Ausgburg, D-86135 Augsburg, Germany
A brief history is presented, outlining the development of rate theory during the past century. Starting from Arrhenius [Z. Phys. Chem. 4, 226 (1889)], we follow especially the formulation of transition state theory by Wigner [Z. Phys. Chem. Abt. B 19, 203 (1932)] and Eyring [J. Chem. Phys. 3, 107 (1935)]. Transition state theory (TST) made it possible to obtain quick estimates for reaction rates for a broad variety of processes even during the days when sophisticated computers were not available. Arrhenius' suggestion that a transition state exists which is intermediate between reactants and products was central to the development of rate theory. Although Wigner gave an abstract definition of the transition state as a surface of minimal unidirectional flux, it took almost half of a century until the transition state was precisely defined by Pechukas [Dynamics of Molecular Collisions B, edited by W. H. Miller (Plenum, New York, 1976)], but even this only in the realm of classical mechanics. Eyring, considered by many to be the father of TST, never resolved the question as to the definition of the activation energy for which Arrhenius became famous. In 1978, Chandler [J. Chem. Phys. 68, 2959 (1978)] finally showed that especially when considering condensed phases, the activation energy is a free energy, it is the barrier height in the potential of mean force felt by the reacting system. Parallel to the development of rate theory in the chemistry community, Kramers published in 1940 [Physica (Amsterdam) 7, 284 (1940)] a seminal paper on the relation between Einstein's theory of Brownian motion [Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 549 (1905)] and rate theory. Kramers' paper provided a solution for the effect of friction on reaction rates but left us also with some challenges. He could not derive a uniform expression for the rate, valid for all values of the friction coefficient, known as the Kramers turnover problem. He also did not establish the connection between his approach and the TST developed by the chemistry community. For many years, Kramers' theory was considered as providing a dynamic correction to the thermodynamic TST. Both of these questions were resolved in the 1980s when Pollak [J. Chem. Phys. 85, 865 (1986)] showed that Kramers' expression in the moderate to strong friction regime could be derived from TST, provided that the bath, which is the source of the friction, is handled at the same level as the system which is observed. This then led to the Mel'nikov–Pollak–Grabert–Hänggi [Mel'nikov and Meshkov, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 1018 (1986); Pollak, Grabert, and Hänggi, ibid. 91, 4073 (1989)] solution of the turnover problem posed by Kramers. Although classical rate theory reached a high level of maturity, its quantum analog leaves the theorist with serious challenges to this very day. As noted by Wigner [Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 29 (1938)], TST is an inherently classical theory. A definite quantum TST has not been formulated to date although some very useful approximate quantum rate theories have been invented. The successes and challenges facing quantum rate theory are outlined. An open problem which is being investigated intensively is rate theory away from equilibrium. TST is no longer valid and cannot even serve as a conceptual guide for understanding the critical factors which determine rates away from equilibrium. The nonequilibrium quantum theory is even less well developed than the classical, and suffers from the fact that even today, we do not know how to solve the real time quantum dynamics for systems with "many" degrees of freedom. ©2005 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 16 December 2004; accepted 23 December 2004; published 17 June 2005
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?CHAOEH/15/026116/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$24)
Download PDF (92 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 82.20.Pm
    Chemical rate constants, reaction cross sections, and activation energies
  • 82.20.Db
    Transition state theory and statistical theories of rate constants (chemical kinetics)
  • 82.20.Xr
    Quantum effects in rate constants (chemical kinetics) including tunneling, resonances, etc
  • 82.60.Hc
    Chemical equilibria and equilibrium constants
  • YEAR: 2005

RELATED DATABASES


To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
1054-1500 (print)   1089-7682 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP

REFERENCES (161)
View in Separate Window/Tab
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. S. Arrhenius, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) 4, 226 (1889).
  2. P. Hänggi, P. Talkner and M. Borkovec, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 251 (1990).
  3. J.H. van't Hoff, in Etudes de Dynamiques Chimiques (F. Muller, Amsterdam, 1884), p. 114.
  4. S. Arrhenius, Theories of Solutions (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1912).
  5. J. A. Christiansen and H. A. Kramers, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) 104, 45 (1923).
  6. H. Eyring, J. Chem. Phys. 3, 107 (1935).
  7. L. Farkas, Z. Phys. Chem., Stoechiom. Verwandtschaftsl. 125, 236 (1927).
  8. H. Pelzer and E. Wigner, Z. Phys. Chem. Abt. B 15, 445 (1932).
  9. H. Eyring and M. Polanyi, Z. Phys. Chem. Abt. B 12, 279 (1931).
  10. E. Wigner, Z. Phys. Chem. Abt. B 19, 203 (1932).
  11. E. Wigner, Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 29 (1938).
  12. H. Eyring, Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 41 (1938).
  13. M. G. Evans, Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 49 (1938).
  14. E. A. Guggenheim and J. Weiss, Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 57 (1938).
  15. The Transition State, A Symposium Held at Sheffield, April 3–4, 1962 (The Chemical Society, Burlington House, London, 1962).
  16. E. Wigner, J. Chem. Phys. 5, 720 (1937).
  17. H. A. Kramers, Physica (Amsterdam) 7, 284 (1940).
  18. A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 549 (1905).
  19. A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A 121, 587 (1983).
  20. R. Landauer and J. A. Swanson, Phys. Rev. 121, 1668 (1961).
  21. J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 973 (1968);
    22. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 54, 258 (1969).
  22. R. F. Grote and J. T. Hynes, J. Chem. Phys. 73, 2715 (1980).
  23. P. Hänggi and F. Mojtabai, Phys. Rev. A 26, 1168 (1982).
  24. F. Marchesoni and P. Grigolini, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 6287 (1983);
    25. E. Guardia, F. Marchesoni, and M. San Miguel, Phys. Lett. 100A, 15 (1984).
  25. B. Carmeli and A. Nitzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 423 (1982).
  26. J. Straub, M. Borkovec, and B. J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys. 84, 1788 (1986).
  27. A. M. Berezhkovskii and V. Yu. Zitserman, Physica A 166, 585 (1990).
  28. A. M. Berezhkovskii and V. Yu. Zitserman, Chem. Phys. 157, 585 (1991).
  29. A. M. Berezhkovskii, E. Pollak, and V. Yu. Zitserman, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 2422 (1992).
  30. D. Ludwig, SIAM Rev. 17, 605 (1975).
  31. B. J. Matkowsky and Z. Schuss, J. Appl. Math. Mech. 33, 365 (1977).
  32. P. Talkner, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 68, 201 (1987).
  33. T. Naeh, M. M. Klosek, B. J. Matkowsky, and Z. Schuss, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 50, 595 (1990).
  34. P. Reimann, G. J. Schmid, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E 60, R1 (1999).
  35. M. Mangel, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 36, 544 (1979).
  36. D. Ryter, Physica A 142, 103 (1987).
  37. M. M. Klosek, B. J. Matkowsky, and Z. Schuss, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 95, 331 (1990).
  38. P. Hänggi, F. Marchesoni, and P. Grigolini, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 56, 333 (1984);
    39. P. Hänggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, J. Stat. Phys. 54 1367 (1989).
  39. P. Hänggi, P. Jung, and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2804 (1988).
  40. G. Debnath, F. Moss, T. Leiber, H. Risken, and F. Marchesoni, Phys. Rev. A 42, 703 (1990).
  41. R. Müller, P. Talkner, and P. Reimann, Physica A 247, 338 (1997).
  42. J. C. Keck, J. Chem. Phys. 32, 1035 (1960).
  43. R. Marcelin, Ann. Phys. (Paris) 3, 120 (1915).
  44. J. Horiuti, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 13, 210 (1938).
  45. J. C. Keck, Adv. Chem. Phys. 13, 85 (1967).
  46. J. C. Keck, J. Chem. Phys. 29, 410 (1958).
  47. N. Bohr, Nature (London) 137, 344 (1936).
  48. K. Morokuma, B. C. Eu, and M. Karplus, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 5193 (1969).
  49. C. N. Hinshelwood, Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 105 (1938).
  50. E. Pollak and P. Pechukas, J. Chem. Phys. 70, 325 (1979).
  51. R. De Vogelaere and M. Boudart, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 1236 (1955).
  52. P. Pechukas, in Dynamics of Molecular Collisions B, edited by W. H. Miller (Plenum, New York, 1976).
  53. E. Pollak and P. Pechukas, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 1218 (1978).
  54. D. J. Sverdlik and G. W. Koeppl, Chem. Phys. Lett. 59, 449 (1978).
  55. E. Pollak, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 10235 (1991).
  56. P. Pechukas and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 71, 2062 (1979).
  57. E. Pollak, M. S. Child, and P. Pechukas, J. Chem. Phys. 72, 1669 (1980).
  58. D. Chandler, J. Chem. Phys. 68, 2959 (1978).
  59. E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 865 (1986).
  60. This model has a long history for which we refer the reader to the article by Hänggi and Ingold (Ref. 61); we only mention the early paper by Bogolyubov (Ref. 62) and the most influential articles by Zwanzig (Ref. 63) and Caldeira and Leggett (Ref. 64).
  61. P. Hänggi and G. L. Ingold, Chaos 15, 026105 (2005).
  62. N.N. Bogolyubov, On Some Statistical Methods in Mathematical Physics (Publ. Akad. Sci. Ukr. SSR, Kiev, 1945), p. 115 (in Russian).
  63. R. Zwanzig, J. Stat. Phys. 9, 215 (1973).
  64. A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 149, 374 (1983).
  65. E. Pollak and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. E 51, 1868 (1995).
  66. V. I. Mel'nikov and S. V. Meshkov, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 1018 (1986).
  67. E. Pollak, H. Grabert, and P. Hänggi, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 4073 (1989).
  68. D.G. Truhlar, A.D. Isaacson and B.C. Garrett, in Theory of Chemical Reaction Dynamics, edited by M. Baer (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1985), Vol. 4, pp. 65–137.
  69. D.G. Truhlar, in Isotope Effects in Chemistry and Biology, edited by H. Limbach and A. Kohen (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004).
  70. F. J. McLafferty and P. Pechukas, Chem. Phys. Lett. 27, 511 (1974).
  71. E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 6765 (1981).
  72. E. Pollak and D. Proselkov, Chem. Phys. 170, 265 (1993).
  73. J. G. Muga, V. Delgado, R. Sala, and R. F. Snider, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 7015 (1996).
  74. E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 64 (1997).
  75. J. Gillan, J. Phys. C 20, 3621 (1987).
  76. G. A. Voth, D. Chandler, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 7749 (1989).
  77. G. A. Voth, J. Phys. Chem. 97, 8365 (1993).
  78. J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 10070 (1993);
    79. 100, 5106 (1994);
    101, 6157 (1994).
  79. G. A. Voth, Adv. Chem. Phys. 93, 135 (1996).
  80. E. Pollak and J.-L. Liao, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 2733 (1998).
  81. G. A. Voth, D. Chandler, and W. H. Miller, J. Phys. Chem. 93, 7009 (1989).
  82. J. Shao, J.-L. Liao, and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 9711 (1998).
  83. H. Wang, X. Sun and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 9726 (1998).
  84. N. F. Hansen and H. C. Andersen, J. Phys. Chem. 100, 1137 (1996).
  85. B. G. Cheney and H. C. Andersen, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9542 (2003).
  86. W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 62, 1899 (1975).
  87. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929 (1977).
  88. E. Gildener and A. Patrascioiu, Phys. Rev. D 16, 423 (1977).
  89. R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 547 (1963).
  90. W. H. Miller, Y. Zhao, M. Ceotto, and S. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 1329 (2003).
  91. L. Plimak and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 4533 (2000).
  92. Y. Zhao, T. Yamamoto, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 3100 (2004).
  93. L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 37, 405 (1931).
  94. C.H. Bennett, in Algorithms for Chemical Computations, edited by R. E. Christoffersen, ACS Symposium Series 46 (American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1977).
  95. Ch. Dellago, P. G. Bolhuis, F. S. Csajka, and D. Chandler, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 1964 (1998).
  96. D. M. Zuckerman and T. B. Woolf, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 9475 (1999).
  97. M. Borkovec and P. Talkner, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 5307 (1990).
  98. E. Pollak, S. C. Tucker, and B. J. Berne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1399 (1990).
  99. E. Pollak, in Activated Barrier Crossing, edited by G. R. Fleming and P. Hänggi (World Scientific, New York, 1993), p. 5.
  100. E. Pollak and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. E 47, 922 (1993).
  101. P. Talkner, Chem. Phys. 180, 199 (1994).
  102. A. N. Drozdov and S. C. Tucker, Phys. Rev. E 61, 2457 (2000).
  103. A. N. Drozdov and S. C. Tucker, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 9675 (2001).
  104. W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 61, 1823 (1974).
  105. W. H. Miller, S. D. Schwartz, and J. W. Tromp, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 4889 (1983).
  106. T. Yamamoto, J. Chem. Phys. 33, 281 (1960).
  107. M. Topaler and N. Makri, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 7500 (1994).
  108. M. Yang, D. H. Zhang, and S.-Y. Lee, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 9539 (2002).
  109. D. M. Ceperely, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 279 (1995).
  110. K. Yamashita and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 5475 (1985).
  111. E. Gallichio, S. Egorov, and B. J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 7745 (1998).
  112. E. Rabani, G. Krilov, and B. J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 2605 (2000).
  113. H. B. G. Casimir, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 343 (1945).
  114. A. Greiner, W. Strittmatter, and J. Honerkamp, J. Stat. Phys. 51, 95 (1988).
  115. P.E. Kloeden and E. Platen, Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equation (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
  116. R. Graham and A. Schenzle, Phys. Rev. A 23, 1302 (1981).
  117. L. Schimansky-Geier, A. V. Tolstopjatenko, and W. Ebeling, Phys. Lett. 108A, 329 (1985).
  118. P. Talkner, P. Hänggi, E. Freidkin, and D. Trautmann, J. Stat. Phys. 48, 231 (1987).
  119. T. Tél, R. Graham, and G. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4065 (1989).
  120. A. D. Ventsel' and M. I. Freidlin, Russ. Math. Surveys 25, 1 (1970).
  121. R. Graham and T. Tél, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 9 (1984).
  122. R. S. Maier and D. L. Stein, Phys. Rev. E 48, 931 (1993).
  123. P. Reimann, R. Müller, and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. E 49, 3670 (1994).
  124. P. Reimann and P. Talkner, Phys. Rev. E 51, 4105 (1995).
  125. R. Benzi, A. Sutera, G. Parisi, and A. Vulpiani, J. Phys. A 14, L453 (1981).
  126. L. Gammaitoni, P. Hänggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 223 (1998).
  127. C. R. Doering and J. C. Gadoua, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2318 (1992).
  128. P. Pechukas and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2772 (1994).
  129. P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. 361, 57 (2002).
  130. R. D. Astumian and P. Hänggi, Phys. Today, 55 (11), 33 (2002).
  131. J. Lehmann, P. Reimann, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1639 (2000);
    132. Phys. Rev. E 62, 6282 (2000);
    Phys. Status Solidi B 237, 53 (2003).
  132. B. McNamara and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. A 39, 4854 (1989).
  133. M. Bier and R. D. Astumian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1649 (1993).
  134. E. Evans and K. Ritchie, Biophys. J. 72, 1541 (1997).
  135. P. Talkner and J. Luczka, Phys. Rev. E 69, 046109 (2004).
  136. S. Wiggins, L. Wiesenfeld, C. Jaffé, and T. Uzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5478 (2001).
  137. H. Waalkens and S. Wiggins, J. Phys. A 37, L435 (2004).
  138. S. Sastry, P. G. Debenedetti, and F. H. Stillinger, Nature (London) 393, 554 (1998).
  139. H. Frauenfelder, S. G. Sligar, and P. G. Wolynes, Science 254, 1598 (1991).
  140. R. Metzler and J. Klafter, J. Phys. A 37, R161 (2004).
  141. J. T. Stockburger and C. H. Mak, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 4983 (1999).
  142. J. T. Stockburger and H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 170407 (2002).
  143. J. Shao, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 5053 (2004).
  144. H. Wang and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 1289 (2003).
  145. S. Zhang and E. Pollak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 190201 (2003).
  146. S. Zhang and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 3384 (2004).
  147. D. Kohen and D. J. Tannor, Adv. Chem. Phys. 111, 219 (2000).
  148. Y. Tanimura and R. K. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 101 (1989).
  149. C. Meier and D. J. Tannor, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 3365 (1999).
  150. R. X. Xu and Y. J. Yan, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 9196 (2002).
  151. J. Ankerhold, Europhys. Lett. 61, 301 (2003).
  152. J. Ankerhold, Acta Phys. Pol. B 34, 3569 (2003).
  153. P. G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 968 (1981).
  154. A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987).
  155. M. Grifoni and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rep. 304, 229 (1998).
  156. M. Grifoni and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1611 (1996).
  157. P. Hänggi, F. Marchesoni, and F. Nori, Ann. Phys. (in press).
  158. P. Talkner, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 167, 360 (1986).
  159. L. Machura, M. Kostur, P. Hänggi, P. Talkner, and J. Luczka, Phys. Rev. E 70, 031107 (2004).
  160. M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Principles of the Quantum Control of Molecular Processes (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
  161. F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer, Berlin, 2001).

CITING ARTICLES
For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.


Copyright © American Institute of Physics