FIG 6 - uploaded by Iannis Kominis
Content may be subject to copyright.
![(a) Magnetic sensitivity of the singlet reaction yield, ΛB = |dYS/dB|, and (b) error δB in the estimation of the magnetic field, normalized by the absolute quantum limit δBF . The black dashed line reproduces the result of the reaction control scheme of [45], while the red solid line is the result of this work. Our reaction control scheme approaches δBF within a factor of 2. (c) The minimum of the red solid line in (b) is plotted as a function of the exchange coupling J. For J = 0.65A = 229k, we obtain δB = 2δBF . But nearby values of J are induced by molecular vibrations, hence averaging trace (c) leads to the realistic uncertainty 2.2 times away from δBF .](profile/Iannis-Kominis/publication/386648161/figure/fig2/AS:11431281296515017@1733937495638/a-Magnetic-sensitivity-of-the-singlet-reaction-yield-LB-dYS-dB-and-b-error-dB.png)
(a) Magnetic sensitivity of the singlet reaction yield, ΛB = |dYS/dB|, and (b) error δB in the estimation of the magnetic field, normalized by the absolute quantum limit δBF . The black dashed line reproduces the result of the reaction control scheme of [45], while the red solid line is the result of this work. Our reaction control scheme approaches δBF within a factor of 2. (c) The minimum of the red solid line in (b) is plotted as a function of the exchange coupling J. For J = 0.65A = 229k, we obtain δB = 2δBF . But nearby values of J are induced by molecular vibrations, hence averaging trace (c) leads to the realistic uncertainty 2.2 times away from δBF .
Source publication
Radical-ion pairs and their reactions have triggered the study of quantum effects in biological systems. This is because they exhibit a number of effects best understood within quantum information science, and at the same time are central in understanding the avian magnetic compass and the spin transport dynamics in photosynthetic reaction centers....
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... magnetic sensitivity resulting from the quantum circuit of Fig.5 is shown in Fig.6 in two equivalent ways. In Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. ...
Context 2
... magnetic sensitivity resulting from the quantum circuit of Fig.5 is shown in Fig.6 in two equivalent ways. In Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. ...
Context 3
... Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. In Fig.6b we plot the absolute value of δB, normalized to the optimum quantum limit δB F . ...
Context 4
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. ...
Context 5
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. ...
Context 6
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. However, as the exchange coupling depends on inter-radical separation, which is modulated by molecular vibrations, in reality we have to average the trace of Fig.6c. Indeed, evaluating J = J 0 e −βr around r = 1.8 nm, and taking a variation of r by 0.05 nm, which is typical for studies on the relaxation effect of Jmodulation due to molecular vibrations [63], leads to a factor of 2 change in J, similar to the J-range of Fig.6c. ...
Context 7
... as the exchange coupling depends on inter-radical separation, which is modulated by molecular vibrations, in reality we have to average the trace of Fig.6c. Indeed, evaluating J = J 0 e −βr around r = 1.8 nm, and taking a variation of r by 0.05 nm, which is typical for studies on the relaxation effect of Jmodulation due to molecular vibrations [63], leads to a factor of 2 change in J, similar to the J-range of Fig.6c. We thus obtain a final δB = 2.2δB F , i.e. 10% higher than the value for a constant (and optimum) J. ...
Context 8
... can now explain this earlier finding: because at that lifetime the reaction is almost complete during one (positive or negative) swing of the sensitivity function g t , and further absol absol absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit ute quantum limit ute quantum limit δΒ ute quantum limit ute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absol absol absolute quantum limit ute quantum limit ute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit swings do not suppress sensitivity. Now, it is evident by looking at Fig.6b that the optimum sensitivity δB aniso S we obtain just by using the optimal RP lifetime (i.e. ...
Context 9
... magnetic sensitivity resulting from the quantum circuit of Fig.5 is shown in Fig.6 in two equivalent ways. In Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. ...
Context 10
... magnetic sensitivity resulting from the quantum circuit of Fig.5 is shown in Fig.6 in two equivalent ways. In Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. ...
Context 11
... Fig.6a we plot the yield sensitivity Λ B = |dY S /dB|, in order to directly compare with the result of [45]. In Fig.6b we plot the absolute value of δB, normalized to the optimum quantum limit δB F . ...
Context 12
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. ...
Context 13
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. ...
Context 14
... in Fig.6c we plot the minimum value of the obtained sensitivity, δB min (i.e. the minimum of the red solid trace of Fig.6b) as a function of the exchange coupling J. However, as the exchange coupling depends on inter-radical separation, which is modulated by molecular vibrations, in reality we have to average the trace of Fig.6c. Indeed, evaluating J = J 0 e −βr around r = 1.8 nm, and taking a variation of r by 0.05 nm, which is typical for studies on the relaxation effect of Jmodulation due to molecular vibrations [63], leads to a factor of 2 change in J, similar to the J-range of Fig.6c. ...
Context 15
... as the exchange coupling depends on inter-radical separation, which is modulated by molecular vibrations, in reality we have to average the trace of Fig.6c. Indeed, evaluating J = J 0 e −βr around r = 1.8 nm, and taking a variation of r by 0.05 nm, which is typical for studies on the relaxation effect of Jmodulation due to molecular vibrations [63], leads to a factor of 2 change in J, similar to the J-range of Fig.6c. We thus obtain a final δB = 2.2δB F , i.e. 10% higher than the value for a constant (and optimum) J. ...
Context 16
... can now explain this earlier finding: because at that lifetime the reaction is almost complete during one (positive or negative) swing of the sensitivity function g t , and further absol absol absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit ute quantum limit ute quantum limit δΒ ute quantum limit ute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absol absol absolute quantum limit ute quantum limit ute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit absolute quantum limit swings do not suppress sensitivity. Now, it is evident by looking at Fig.6b that the optimum sensitivity δB aniso S we obtain just by using the optimal RP lifetime (i.e. ...
