arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 16 Apr 2008

Transcription

1 Efficiency of energy transfer in a light-harvesting syste under quantu coherence Alexandra Olaya-Castro, 1, Chiu Fan Lee, 1 Francesca Fassioli Olsen, 1 and Neil F. Johnson 2 1 Departent of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, OX1 3PU, United Kingdo 2 Departent of Physics, University of Miai, Meorial Drive, Coral Gables, Miai, Florida FL33126, USA arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 16 Apr 28 We investigate the role of quantu coherence in the efficiency of excitation transfer in a ring-hub arrangeent of interacting two-level systes, iicking a light-harvesting antenna connected to a reaction center as it is found in natural photosynthetic systes. By using a quantu jup approach, we deonstrate that in the presence of quantu coherent energy transfer and energetic disorder, the efficiency of excitation transfer fro the antenna to the reaction center depends intiately on the quantu superposition properties of the initial state. In particular, we find that efficiency is sensitive to syetric and asyetric superposition of states in the basis of localized excitations, indicating that initial state properties can be used as a efficiency control paraeter at low teperatures. I. INTRODUCTION Solar energy conversion in photosynthetic bacteria relies on sophisticated light-harvesting (LH) antennae which capture photons and then transfer the electronic excitation to a olecular coplex which serves as a reaction centre (RC). There charge separation takes place and cheical energy storage is initiated (e.g., see Ref. 1). Soe of the harvesting coplexes (LH1) and the RC are closely associated and for a core unit to ensure an efficient pathway for the transfer of excitations coing fro peripheral antennae (LH2). This transfer takes only a few hundred picoseconds and is perfored with extraordinarily high efficiency: ost of the absorbed photons give rise to a charge separation event 1. The precise echaniss underlying such high efficiency reain elusive despite nuerous studies on the subject. In particular, whether quantu coherence plays any role on prooting the efficiency is still abiguous. Soe works indicate that it will induce higher excitation-transferrates 2 while others argue that this ay not necessarily be the case 3. Rearkably, recent experiental and theoretical works 4,5,6 indicate that long-lasting electronic coherence can indeed influence the excitation transfer dynaics in photosynthetic coplexes. For instance, quantu beats associated with electronic coherence in the Fenna- Matthews-Olson(FMO) coplex of green sulfur bacteria, which connects a large LH to the RC has been reported by Engel et al. 4. Also, coherence aong electronic states of closely associated pigents in the RC of purple bacteria has been reported by Lee et al. 5. Furtherore, the excitation transfer in organic dendriers has attracted significant attention through the prospect of creating artificial photosynthetic systes 7. One of the key observations in these artificial systes is the evidence of coherent energy transfer echaniss. These experients therefore open up the possibility of exploring in detail the interplay between quantu coherence and the efficiency of natural and artificial LH systes. In this work we consider as odel syste a ring-hub arrangeent of interacting two-level systes, representing a LH1-RC core unit as in purple bacteria 8,9,1, and use the quantu jup approach 11,12 to provide a siple FIG. 1: Scheatic of the LH1-RC core of purple bacteria Rodobacter Sphaeroides. (a) Arrangeent of the 32 Bacterioclorophils (BChl) surrounding the RC. The RC has two accessory BChl and two acceptors foring a special pair responsible for charge separation. (b) Diagra of the induced dipole oents in (a). The arrows indicate the dipole oent directions corresponding to data taken fro Xhu et al. 9. (c) Toy odel: the RC is assued to be a single two-level syste. picture of how the quantu superposition properties of the initial state of the excitation relate to the efficiency of transfer fro the LH1 coplex to the RC when coherent energy transfer and static disorder of single-site energies doinate. The quantu jup approach 11,12 proves to be particularly suitable to describe excitation dynaics in this situation because the density atrix eleents can be calculated exactly fro the no-jup evolution, given that there is only one excitation at ost in the syste and that only local dissipation rates (or charge separation rates) are assued 1. Considering initial states as superpositions of single-site excitations, we find that the efficiency profile depends both on the syetry properties of such superposition states, and on the nuber of sites aong which the excitation is initially delocalized. In particular, our results show a non-trivial interplay between excitation delocalization and efficiency as there can be an optial delocalization length for which efficiency of transfer reaches a axiu and transfer tie a iniu. Such behaviour is robust to the presence of energetic disorder. The plan of this paper is as follows. The next section outlines the odel of energy transfer at very low teperatures as well as how we use the quan-

2 2 tu jup approach to calculate the ain characteristics of our photosynthetic syste. Section III discusses our results both for a toy odel and for a ore detailed Hailtonian describing the LH1-RC coplex. II. COHERENT EXCITATION TRANSFER We consider a syste of M donor pigents surrounding a RC with N acceptors (see Fig. 1) described by the Hailtonian H = H +H I. Labeling the donors fro 1 to M, and the acceptors fro M+1 to, the single particle Hailtonian is H = α=1 ǫ α σ α + σ α where ǫ α is the excitation energy of pigent α, and the interaction Hailtonian reads: H I = γ jcˆvjc + ;k>j J jkˆvjk + ;r>c g crˆvcr. (1) Here ˆV ab = σ + a σ b +σ+ b σ a where σ+( ) is the Pauli operator for a two-level syste, and γ jc, J jk and g cr are the donor-acceptor, donor-donor, and acceptor-acceptor couplings, respectively. We are interested in the low teperature regie where static disorder doinates and dynaical effects can be neglected 13. In order to account for static disorder we treat ǫ α as having a rando coponent: ǫ α = E α () + δe α where E α () is the enseble average value, and δe α is the energy disorder at site α given by a Gaussian distribution with zero ean and standard deviation σ. We assue that the open syste dynaics is doinated by two incoherent processes: the excitation can be dissipated in a donor or it can induce charge separation at a site in the RC. Such dynaics of our coherent photosynthetic core can be described by the Lindblad aster equation ( h = 1): d dt ρ = i[h,ρ]+ 1 2 [2A αρa α A αa αρ ρa αa α], (2) α where the coutator generates the coherent part of the evolution and the action of each operator A α = 2Γ α σ α accounts for a jup process associated either to dissipation of excitation in a donor i.e Γ α = Γ with α = 1,...M, or for a charge separation event at an acceptor of the RC i.e Γ α = κ with α = M + 1,...M + N. Here we have assued identical dissipation rates for the donors and identical charge separation rates for the acceptors at the RC. This foralis can be extended to include other incoherent processes. In order to solve equation (2) we follow the quantu jup approach 11 and re-write equation (2) as with ρ = i(h cond ρ ρh cond )+ α H cond = H iγ N σ + j σ j iκ A α ρa α (3) σ + c σ c, (4) In this description, the excitation dynaics can be interpreted in ters of quantu trajectories where the syste follows a no-jup evolution associated to the non-heritian Hailtonian H cond, interrupted by a single stochastic collapse of the syste to its ground state in the event of either dissipation or charge separation, with probability p α = tr[a α ρa α]. The no-jup trajectory conditioned on no-decay-occur is described by ρ cond (t) = i(h cond ρ ρh cond ). In particular, if the initial state is pure, i.e. Ψ(), the state reains pure (but unnoralized, i.e. dissipative) in the no-jup trajectory and becoes Ψ cond (t) = exp( ih cond t) Ψ(). We now deonstrate that given that a single excitation is present in our photosynthetic core, the dynaics of all the density atrix eleents can be calculated exactly knowing only ρ cond (t). Notice that H cond preserves the nuber of excitations i.e. [H cond,n] = with N = α=1 σ ασ + α. Hence, for a single excitation the density atrix dynaics is restricted to the subspace of single-excitation states plus the ground state. We choose the basis given by S = {,{ j },{ c }}, where = 1... M ; M+1... is the state with all the pigents in their ground state, and j = j... M ; M+1... c = 1... M ; M c... are states in which only the jth donor (or cth acceptor) is excited. The labels after the seicolon in each ket refer to the acceptors at the RC. Let us denote the density atrix eleents ρ kl (t) = k ρ(t) l for any pair of states k, l S. Notice that the second ter of Eq. (3) satisfies k A α ρ(t)a α l = for all states except when k = l =. Therefore, for single- states ρ kl (t) = k ρ cond (t) l, while ρ (t) = excitation α A αρ(t)a α = 2 α Γ α α ρ(t) α. Now, since ρ() = ρ cond (), then ρ (t) = 2 α Γ α α ρ cond (t) α. This deonstrates that the dynaics of all density atrix eleents can be entirely calculated with ρ cond (t) and hence our clai. A. Efficiency and Transfer ties With the above foralis we can now focus on the ain features of our coherent LH1-RC core. As it is described in the review by Sener et al. 14, of particular interest are the efficiency, which is given by the probability of an excitation to be used for charge separation as opposed to being dissipated, the average transfer tie of excitation to get trapped by the RC, and the excitation lifetie after the initial absorption of a photon. Let us denote the initial state Ψ. Clearly, the probabilitythattheexcitationisstillinthesysteattiet, i.e no-jup probability is P(t;Ψ ) = k k ρ cond (t) k while w(t;ψ ) = ρ (t) is the probability density that a jup (charge separation or dissipation) occurs between

3 3 [t,t+dt) and it reads w(t;ψ ) = 2Γ j ρ cond (t) j +2κ c ρ cond (t) c w D(t;Ψ )+w RC(t;Ψ ). (5) Here w D (t;ψ )dt is the probability that it is dissipated by any of the donors in [t,t + dt) while w RC (t;ψ )dt is the probability that the excitation is used for charge separation at the RC. Notice also that w(t;ψ ) = dp(t;ψ )/dt leading to w(t;ψ )dt = 1 which iplies that the excitation will eventually either be dissipated or trapped in the RC. In particular, for pure initial states of the for Ψ = M b j() j + b c() c with M b j() 2 + b c() 2 = 1, we have that ρ cond (t) = Ψ cond (t) Ψ cond (t) with the unnoralized conditional state given by Ψ cond (t) = b j (t) j + b c (t) c. (6) The onotonically decreasing nor of this state gives the no-jup probability P(t;Ψ ) = Ψ cond 2, while w D (t;ψ ) = 2Γ M b j(t) 2, and w RC (t;ψ ) = 2κ b c (t) 2. (7) We therefore define the efficiency (η) of energy transfer to the RC as the total probability that the excitation is used in charge separation. The transfer tie (t f ) is the average waiting-tie before a jup associated with charge-separation in the RC, given that the excitation was initially in the LH1 ring. The excitation lifetie (τ) is the average waiting-tie before a jup of any kind occurs: η = dtw RC(t;Ψ ), t f = 1 η τ = dttw RC(t;Ψ ), dttw(t;ψ ). (8) III. EFFICIENCY CONTROL MECHANISMS In the classical description 14,15, where incoherent excitation transfer is assued, typical efficiencies of energy transfer tend to be near unit. This is due to a separation of the dissipation (ns) and the excitation transfer and charge separation tie scales (ps). We shall shortly show that using the sae paraeters for single-site energies, electronic couplings, dissipation and charge separation rates, the efficiencies obtained under coherent transfer are uch lower and strongly dependent on the initial state of the excitation. We find that the initial relative phases between localized excitation states j, and η t f [ps] Nearest (b) Pairwise 2 Dipole 1 Nearest Pairwise Dipole (a) P(t) τ [ps] t [ns] 4 (d) Nearest Pairwise 3 Dipole 2 1 (c) =1 =15 = FIG. 2: Nuerical results for (a) η, (b) t f, and and (d) τ versus, for the toy odel with three different interaction echaniss. For nearest-neighbour interactions ( ) the coupling is 1eV, while for the pairwise case (+) it is 1eV and equals the average dipole-dipole coupling ( ). In each case, the donor-rc coupling γ equals 1eV, Γ = 1 ns 1 and κ = 4 ps 1. (c) No-jup probability for the case of dipoledipole interactions, as a function of tie and for different values. the nuber of donors aong which the excitation is initially delocalized, can act act as efficiency control echaniss. In what follows, we first consider a siple odel for which analytical solutions can be obtained and then we calculate efficiency and transfer ties with the odel Hailtonian given by Hu et al. 9,1. A. A toy odel for the LH1-RC coplex The siplest odel for which analytical solutions can be obtained corresponds to the RC taken as a single twolevel syste i.e. N = 1, on resonance with the M = 32 donors in the LH1 ring (see Fig. 1(c)). Later we shall show that the ain qualitative behaviour observed in this situation also applies to a odel featuring the detailed structure of the LH1-RC coplex in purple bacteria. We consider initial states in which the excitation is delocalized aong donors, i.e. Ψ = M b j() j with M b j() 2 = 1. TheunnoralizedstateofEq. (6)becoes Ψ cond (t) = M b j(t) j + b M+1 (t) M +1 satisfying the equation d Ψ cond (t) /dt = ih cond Ψ cond (t) which leads to a set of first-order coupled differential equations for the coplex aplitudes b j (t) and b M+1 (t). In Appendix A we show that when the syste s dynaics is invariant with respect to exchange of donors in the antenna, one can find analytical solutions for b M+1 (t). Let us define the effective interaction between a donor j and the rest of pigents in the LH1 ring as j = k J jk i.e. the su of all the coupling strengths between donor j and any other pigent in the LH ring.

4 4 The syste s dynaics is invariant with respect to donor exchange when both all donor-rc couplings are identical, i.e. γ jc γ, and the effective interaction between a donor and the rest of pigents in the ring are also identical for all donors, i.e. j = for all j. Under these conditions b M+1 (t) satisfies the differential equation b M+1 (t)+xḃm+1(t)+yb M+1 (t) = with X = (κ + Γ + i ) and Y = 4Mγ 2 + κ(γ + i ) (see details in Appendix A). For the initial condition where b M+1 () = i.e. excitation is initially in the ring, we find b M+1 (t) 2 = F(t) M b j () 2. (9) Here F(t) = 4γ 2 e (Γ+κ)t sin(ωt/2) 2 / Ω 2 and Ω is the coplex frequency that deterines the tiescale of coherent oscillations i.e. Ω = 4Mγ 2 (Γ κ+i ) 2. Note that identical for all donors does not iply that the pair couplings J jk need to be identical for all possible pairs. Hence, analytical solutions can be found for three different echaniss of interaction between the donors: (i) nearest neighbours with J jj+1 = J/2 (ii) pairwise interaction with J jk J for all j,k pairs and (iii) dipole-dipole interactions of the for J jk = J/r 3 jk where r jk is the relative position vector between the induced dipole oents of donors j and k. Fro equation (7) the probability density of having charge separation becoes w RC (t;ψ ) = 2κ b M+1 (t) 2, then we obtain an expression for the corresponding efficiency: η = 2κ B 2 F(t)dt (1) with B = M b j(). Equation (1) is the ain result of this paper. It shows that the efficiency of transfer depends on the quantu coherence properties of the initial state as it becoes proportional to B 2 i.e. the aplitude of probability, and not just the probability, that the excitation is initially in the LH1. Therefore, the efficiency profile is sensitive to syetric and asyetric superpositions of localized excitation sates j i.e. it depends on the initial relative phases between states j. Fro equation (1) one can conclude that syetric delocalized excitation states yield an increase in η, while soe asyetric states could be used to liit or even prevent the transfer, i.e. η =. Unless otherwise stated, we henceforth consider syetric initial states of the for Ψ s = (1/ ) j where M is the nuber of donors aong which the excitation is initially delocalized. We denote the delocalization length. For these syetric states B 2 = and hence η as shown in Fig. 2(a). This figure also shows that the efficiency gradient depends on strength of the interaction between one donor and the rest, which is quantified by. We have chosen γ to be the sae for all these situations, but J has been taken to be such that nearest < dipole pairwise. For a fixed, η reaches higher values in the case of nearest-neighbor couplings, while it achieves siilar values for dipole-dipole and pairwise interactions. According to these results, interaction aong donors liits the efficiency: the stronger the effective interaction between one donor and the ring, the lower the efficiency will be. This phenoenon sees to reseble the entangleent sharing dynaics in the context ofacentralspin coupled to a spin-bath 16. In our case the LH1coplex canbe seen asaspin bath forthe RC. Dawson et al. 16 have discussed that interaction between bath spins translates to entangleent aong the, and since entangleent cannot be shared arbitrarily aong several particles, interaction aong spins in the bath liit entangleent between the central spin and the bath, and therefore ay liit the efficiency of transfer. A discussion of efficiency in ters of entangleent is beyond the scope of this paper and the work in this direction will be presented elsewhere. Interestingly, t f in this siple odel turns out to be independent of, as can be deduced fro Eq. (7). Therefore, for the syetric initial statesconsidered,t f dependsainlyontheechanisof interaction, as can be seen in Fig. 2(b). The decay-rate of P(t; Ψ s ) increases with, as shown in Fig. 2(c). Correspondingly, the excitation lifetie τ decreases as shown in Fig. 2(d). The three situations satisfy t f τ, where the equality holds for the initial state in which the excitation is syetrically delocalized aong all donors. B. A detailed odel for the LH1-RC coplex. We now apply the above foralis to the effective Hailtonian for the LH1-RC interaction given in references 9 and 1 9,1. In this case the RC has a special pair of BChl responsible for the charge separation, i.e. N = 2 acceptors, and two ore accessory BChl olecules which do not participate in the charge separation process 18 (see Fig. 1). The effective Hailtonian is of the for given in equation (1) but with certain particularities. First, the pigents at the RC are off-resonance with the donors. Second, the interactions between adjacent olecules are quantified by two different constants i.e. J 2j,2j+1 = ν 1 and J 2j,2j 1 = ν 2 which are derived through quantu cheical calculations 9,1. Third, the coupling between non-neighbouring donors corresponds to a dipole-dipole interaction of the for J jk = µj µ k r 3 jk 3( r jk µ j)( r jk µ k ) r 5 jk where µ j is the transitiondipole oent ofthe j th donor and r jk is the relative position vector between donors j and k. The directions of µ j have been taken fro Hu et al. 1, and a top view of the dipole representation of the LH1-RCcore is shown in figure1(b). For the initial condition of the excitation in the LH1 coplex we consider both syetric initial states Ψ s = (1/ ) j withtotalaplitude ofprobability B 2 =, andasyetric states Ψ as = (1/ ) ( 1)j j satisfying B 2 =. Since the syste s dynaics is not invariant with respect to pigent exchange, for each delocalization

5 5 η 1 (a) σ = σ =3 c 1 σ =5 c 1 σ =15 c 1 t f [ps] (b) σ = σ =15 c 1 σ =5 c 1 σ =3 c 1 η.6 (a).5.4 σ =15 c σ =5 c 1.1 σ =3 c 1 σ = t f [ps] 5 (b) 45 σ = σ =15 c σ =5 c 1 σ =3 c FIG. 3: Nuerical results for initial syetric states of the for Ψ s = (1/ ) j satisfying B 2 =. (a) Efficiency and (b) transfer tie versus for different σ values. Results shown are averaged over an enseble of 1 aggregates for each standard deviation σ. Singlesite energies and electronic couplings for the LH1-RC core have been taken reference 1. For donors in the LH1 coplex E j() = c 1 while for the special pair at the RC E c() = c 1, and for the accessory BChl. E a() = c 1. In all cases Γ = 1 ns 1 and κ = 4 ps 1. FIG. 4: Nuerical results for initial asyetric states of the for Ψ as = (1/ ) ( 1)j j satisfying B 2 =. (a) Efficiency and (b) transfer tie versus for different σ values. Results shown are averaged over an enseble of 1 aggregates for each standard deviation σ. Singlesite energies and electronic couplings for the LH1-RC core have been taken fro reference 1. For donors in the LH1 coplex E j() = c 1 while for the special pair at the RC E c() = c 1, and for the accessory BChl. E a() = c 1. In all cases Γ = 1 ns 1 and κ = 4 ps 1. length, we calculate the average efficiency η η where the average is taken over all possible states for which the excitation is delocalized aong consecutive donors. Also, when energetic disorder is considered, for each value of standard deviation σ, the efficiency corresponds to the enseble average over 1 realizations of disordered H. We denote this average efficiency η and the corresponding average transfer tie t f. An estiate of σ = 3c 1 for the standard deviation of the diagonal disorder distribution in the LH1 has been provided in the literature 17. Therefore we have carried out calculations for σ values rangingfro to 15c 1 and the results for syetric and asyetric initial states are shown in figures 3 and 4 respectively. For syetric states and in the absence of energetic disorder i.e. σ =, the behaviour of the efficiency and transfer tie are very siilar to that in the toy odel: η = increases linearly with (see Fig. 3(a)) while t f = decreases (see Fig. 3(b)), achieving axiu efficiency and iniu transfer tie for the fully delocalized situation. For disorder distributions corresponding to sall values of σ i.e σ 5c 1, there are syetric states which exhibit efficiency iproved in coparison to the situation where no disorder is considered. Such states correspond to those for which < 1 as it can be seen in figure 3(a). However, the efficiency values are clearly decreased with increasing σ. Conversely for the asyetric states satisfying B 2 =, the efficiency is a non-onotonic function of, indicating that there is an optial delocalization length for which η has a axiu and for which t f has a iniu as it is shown in figure 4. The optial delocalization length is around = 1 as it can been see in figure 4(a). Such behaviour is robust to the presence of energetic disorder, and indeed iproved as the efficiency values are larger with increasing σ. It is also worth noting that in both cases, syetric and asyetric states, the efficiencies obtained are lower than those given by a classical calculation with rate equations derived for the sae single-site energies, electronic couplings, and dissipation and charge separation rates here considered 15. The above results suggest that efficiency can therefore be used as an indicator for coherent energy transfer. In particular, two-diensional spectroscopy techniques recently developed to study coherence dynaics in photosynthetic systes 4,5 ay be used to create and probe quantu superposition initial states. For instance, an optically allowed state of LH1 is the copletely delocalized asyetric state 9. For very low values of energetic disorder and at very low teperatures, the efficiency of transfer fro such state is nearly zero. At a slightly higher teperature, the excitation will becoe less delocalized and as such the efficiency would increase (c.f Fig. 4). In other words, an experient easuring the efficiency of an LH1-RC core under various teperatures, but still within a low teperature regie, could serve to ascertain the extend of coherence in energy transfer. Interestingly, soe experiental works have indicated that in theralized LH2 coplexes the excitation ay be coherently delocalized over just a few donors of the B85 ring 19 while at very low teperatures it can be fully delocalized over the whole ring 2. Unfortunately, no such

6 6 investigation has been reported on the LH1. In conclusion, we have presented a foralis to study the role of quantu coherence in photosynthetic units that exhibit coherent energy transfer echanis. Our results open up experiental possibilities to investigate and exploit such coherent phenoena in artificial and natural systes harvesting light. Acknowledgents A.O-C thanks Trinity College (Oxford) for financial support. C-F.L thanks Glasstone Trust (Oxford) and Jesus College (Oxford) for financial support. F.F.O is grateful to Conicyt (Chile). APPENDIX A: DETAILS OF THE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE TOY MODEL As described in section III (A), in the siplest situation where the RC is taken as a single two-level syste on resonance with M donors, we are able to find analytical solutions for the probability density of having a charge separation event at the RC, and therefore we find an analytical expression for the efficiency of transfer in this toy odel (see Eq.(1)). Here we give the details of this calculation. The unnoralized state Ψ cond (t) given in equation (6) satisfies the relation d Ψ cond (t) /dt = ih cond Ψ cond (t) which leads to the following set of first-order coupled differential equations ḃ j(t) = iγ jb M+1(t) i ḃ M+1(t) = i J jk b k (t) Γb j(t) (A1) k j γ jb j(t) κb M+1(t). (A2) Assuing that all donor-rc coupling are identical i.e. γ j γ for all j = , we have bm+1 (t)+κḃm+1(t)+mγ 2 b M+1 (t) = G(t) with G(t) = iγγ b j (t) γ J jk b k (t). k j Defining the effective coupling between one donor and the LH1 ring as j = M k j J jk, and assuing it identical for all the donors in the LH1 i.e. j, we have G(t) = γ(iγ ) M b j(t). Now fro equation (A2) we get M b j(t) = iγ 1 (ḃm+1(t)+κb M+1 (t)) and thus we arrive to bm+1 (t)+xḃm+1(t)+yb M+1 (t) =, (A3) with X = (κ + Γ + i ) and Y = 4Mγ 2 + κ(γ + i ). The solutions of the above differential equation are of the for with b M+1 (t) = f(t) b j ()+g(t)b M+1 () f(t) = 2iγe Xt/2sin(Ωt/2) Ω [ (Γ κ+i ) g(t) = e Xt/2 sin(ωt/2) + cos(ωt/2) Ω (A4) and Ω = 4Mγ 2 (Γ κ+i ) 2. The abovesolutionis invariant with respect to exchange of any pair of two-level systes. It is also worth noting that the above foralis allows to find a closed expression for the collective aplitude of probability B(t) = M j b j (t) which leads to further siplifications of this syste. 21 ] Electronic address: a.olaya@physics.ox.ac.uk 1 R. J. Cogdell, et al., Quart. Rev. Biophys. 39, 3 (26); X. Hu et al., Quart. Rev. Biophys. 35, 1 (22). 2 S. Jang, M.D. Newton, and R.J. Silbey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, (24). 3 K. M. Gaab and C. J. Bardeen, J. Che. Phys. 121, 7813 (24). 4 G. S. Engelet al., Nature 446, 782 (27). 5 H. Lee, Y.-C. Cheng, G.R. Fleing, Science 316, 1462 (27). 6 R. van Grondelle and V. I. Novoderezhkin, Phys. Che. Che. Phys. 8, 793 (26). 7 D. L. Andrews and D. S. Bradshaw, J. Che Phys. 121, 2445 (24); J. M. Lupton et al., J. Phys. Che. B 16, 7647 (22); M. I. Ranasinghe et al., J. A. Che. Soc. 125, 5258 (23) 8 A. Dajanović et al., Int. J. Quant. Che. 77, 139 (2); T. Ritz et al., J. Phys Che. B 15, 8259 (21). 9 X. Hu et al., J. Phys Che. B 11, 3854 (1997). 1 X. Hu and K. Schulten, Biophy. J. 75, 683 (1998); 11 H. Carichael, An Open Systes Approach to Quantu Optics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993), Vol M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Rev. Mod. Phys. 7, 11 (1998). 13 C. Hofann, H. Michel, M. van Heel, and J. Kohler, Phys.

7 7 Rev. Lett. 94, (25). 14 M. Sener and K. Schulten, Energy Harvesting Materials, edited by David L. Andrews (World Scientific, Singapore, 25). 15 T. Ritz, S. Park and K. Schulten, J.Phys. Che. B 15, 8259 (21). 16 C. M. Dawson, A. P. Hines, R. H. McKenzie,and G. J. Milburn Phys. Rev. A 71, (25). 17 K. Tipann, et al., Che. Phys. Lett. 414, 359 (25). 18 T. Ritz et al., Che. Phys. Che. 3, 243 (22). 19 G. Trinkunas, J.L. Herek, T. Polívka, V. Sundströ, and T. Pullerits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4167 (21). 2 A. M. van Oijen et al., Science 285, 4 (1999). 21 A. Olaya-Castro et al., Europhys. Lett. 74, 28 (26).