528
Hamm, Ohline, and Zinth: Vibrational cooling after photoisomerization
cally coupled low-frequency bath modes. Yet, one important
conclusion is possible: As seen from Fig. 7, a stimulated
emission signal would be a clear indication for a strong non-
thermal energy distribution which, however, is not observed
experimentally for azobenzene. Thus, at least a strong devia-
tion from a thermal energy distribution can be excluded for
the observed vibrational modes, although the absence of a
stimulated emission signal cannot show that the molecule is
fully thermalized.
emission signal, an unambiguous assignment of an anhar-
monic frequency shift to a nonthermal selective excitation of
one vibrational mode will be difficult. It is interesting to note
that not necessarily very particular and strongly coupled
modes like the central bending and torsional modes of
azobenzene or stilbene ͑see, for example, Ref. 13͒ are re-
sponsible for strong anharmonic effects. Also a great number
of only weakly coupled modes may give rise to considerable
effects, as shown here in the case of the rather rigid benzene
molecule. This is seen from the fact that the averaged value
of the anharmonic constants of the mode of benzene
19
IV. CONCLUSION
͑1.3ϫ10Ϫ3͒ is of the same order ͑even slightly larger͒ than
the estimated corresponding value necessary to reproduce the
experimental results in azobenzene ͑0.9ϫ10Ϫ3͒.
As seen in Fig. 6, the results on azobenzene can be ex-
plained without contradiction under the assumptions of a
thermal population distribution of the molecule in the inves-
tigated time range of Ͼ1 ps. There is no experimental evi-
dence for a stimulated emission signal which would be in-
dicative of a highly nonthermal energy distribution. Thus, a
strong deviation from a thermal distribution of these vibra-
tional modes seems to be very unlikely in terms of the
present model. On the other hand, the model involving ul-
trafast IVR explains the observed hot-bands with the help of
the anharmonic constants xij between the investigated vibra-
tional modes and the bath of the remaining modes very well.
Consequently, one basically observes the cooling of the
whole molecule due to the energy transfer from the molecule
to the solvent and not a mode selective de-excitation of the
investigated modes. The time scale of the cooling via inter-
molecular energy transfer ͑ca. 20 ps͒ is in a reasonable
range3,4 and compares well with the results of the transient
UV experiments in Ref. 37. The anharmonic frequency shifts
and broadening effects are a consequence of the intramolecu-
lar temperature and can be regarded as a intramolecular ther-
mometer which can be calibrated precisely with the help of
model calculations and also with steady-state experiments.
A clear distinction between thermal and a moderate non-
thermal energy distribution presently is not possible. In other
words, the concept of an intramolecular temperature eventu-
ally is a rough approximation. However, since this approxi-
mation readily can explain the experimental results as shown
in Sec. III A 1, this approach seems to be justified.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated here the concept of
a new intermolecular thermometer. The experimental data
obtained by transient IR spectroscopy combined with model
calculations give valuable qualitative insights into the effects
which can be expected when investigating the excitation of
vibrational modes initiated by a photoreaction. Future inves-
tigations going beyond this qualitative approach require sev-
eral improvements: ͑i͒ A higher time resolution on the order
of ca. 100 fs; ͑ii͒ smaller systems which can be modeled
theoretically with higher accuracy; ͑iii͒ selected vibrational
modes which, on the one side, have a large diagonal anhar-
monic constant and on the other side, are strongly coupled to
the internal conversion process; and ͑iv͒ an extension of the
frequency range into the Ͻ1000 cmϪ1 regime in order to
address for example torsional modes ͑found in this spectral
range͒ which might be expected to be strongly coupled
modes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Gerhard Stock, Eberhard
Riedle, Wolfgang Domcke, Paul Tavan, and Anne Myers for
very fruitful discussions, and Thomas Naegele, Werner Ga-
bler, and Joseph Wachtveitl for making the results of the UV
experiments available prior to publication. S.M.O. acknowl-
edges the support of a postdoctoral fellowship granted by the
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.
During the electronic excitation process, the Franck–
Condon active modes are excited, which may be observed by
transient Raman experiments. On the other hand, the tran-
sient IR experiments performed here investigates the ‘‘bath’’
modes which may have a different equilibration time than
the hot Franck–Condon modes.
The attempt to explain anharmonic frequency shifts only
with the diagonal anharmonic constants xkk which are ob-
tained when measuring the frequency of the overtone ͑as it
was done, for example, in Refs. 13, 16, 17, and 19͒ does not
explain the investigated experimental situation. Such a treat-
ment will give reasonable results only in the special situation
where the sum of the off-diagonal elements is smaller than
the diagonal element, i.e., ͑i͒ for very small molecules, ͑ii͒
for a special mode with extremely large diagonal anharmonic
constant term, or ͑iii͒ when energy flows selectively into
only one or very few modes. Without a clear stimulated
1 A. Lauberreau and W. Kaiser, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 607 ͑1978͒.
2 D. W. Oxtoby, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 32, 77 ͑1981͒.
3 A. Seilmeier and W. Kaiser, in Ultrashort Laser Pulses, edited by W.
Kaiser ͑Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988͒, p. 279.
4 T. Elsaesser and W. Kaiser, Annu. Rev. Chem. Phys. 42, 83 ͑1991͒.
5 J. C. Owrutsky, D. Raftery, and R. M. Hochstrasser, Annu. Rev. Phys.
Chem. 45, 519 ͑1994͒.
6 R. Sension, S. Repinec, A. Szarka, and R. M. Hochstrasser, J. Chem.
Phys. 98, 6291 ͑1993͒.
7 K. Lenz, M. Pfeiffer, A. Lau, and T. Elsaesser, Chem. Phys. Lett. 229, 340
͑1994͒.
8 W. Zinth, C. Kolmeder, B. Benna, A. Irgens-Defregger, S. F. Fischer, and
W. Kaiser, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 3916 ͑1983͒.
9 S. J. Doig, P. J. Reid, and R. A. Mathies, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 6372 ͑1991͒.
10 W. L. Weaver, L. A. Hutson, K. Iwata, and T. L. Gustafson, J. Phys.
Chem. 96, 8956 ͑1992͒.
11 K. Iwata and H. Hamaguchi, Chem. Phys. Lett. 196, 462 ͑1992͒.
12 J. Qian, S. L. Schultz, R. G. Bradburn, and J. M. Jean, J. Phys. Chem. 97,
10638 ͑1993͒.
13 D. L. Phillips, J. M. Rodier, and A. B. Myers, Chem. Phys. 175, 1 ͑1993͒.
J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 106, No. 2, 8 January 1997