understanding the chemical history of heavy elements (  metals " ) in the interstellar medium ( ism ) of galaxies is an important , but difficult undertaking .
because refractory elements are found to be depleted from the gas phase ( locked into grains ) , they provide a substantial reservoir of coolants in the solid - state phase .
interstellar grain surfaces are believed to furnish formation sites for molecular hydrogen ( h@xmath1 ) , which is both a coolant and the starting point for a rich cloud chemistry .
grains also provide a critical transfer mechanism for reprocessing uv / o starlight into far - infrared and sub - mm emission from interstellar molecular clouds and high - redshift galaxies . in the high - redshift universe , the first dust grains may influence the thermodynamics of the primordial gas and thereby control rates of star formation .
recent observations of dust grains at high redshift have been puzzling in the context of their formation .
several observations of damped ly@xmath2 systems ( pettini 1994 ; ledoux , bergeron & petitjean 2002 ) have shown evidence of dust grains in them . also , thermal emission ( at @xmath3 mm ) from dust in high redshift ( @xmath4 ) qsos in the sloan digital sky survey ( sdss ) have been reported ( bertoldi 2003 ) .
the implied dust mass of @xmath5 m@xmath6 within a gyr after the big bang appears difficult to explain with traditional models of grain formation in evolved low mass stars ( dunne 2003 ) , from which grains are thought to be transported to the interstellar medium ( ism ) through stellar winds ( whittet 1992 ) .
recent models have , therefore , focused on other sites of dust grain formation , such as ejecta of core - collapse supernova explosions that can occur on shorter time scales than that of the evolution of low mass stars ( dwek & scalo 1980 ) .
core - collapse supernovae are thought to be capable of synthesizing a significant amount of dust in the sn ejecta .
applying a theory of nucleation and grain growth developed by kozasa & hasegawa ( 1987 ) , kozasa ( 1989 ; 1991 ) and todini & ferrara ( 2001 ) have studied grain formation in expanding sn ejecta , the latter estimating the dust mass formed @xmath7 m@xmath8 .
nozawa ( 2003 ) have extended it to the case of zero - metallicity sne for population iii stars ( see also schneider , ferrara & salvaterra 2004 ) .
although the sn `` dust factory model '' would explain the large observed dust masses in high - redshift galaxies , observations of dust in nearby sne appear inconsistent with this model , falling factors of 10100 short of the required amounts ( @xmath9 ; see above ) . as an example , in a review of type  ii sn  2003gd ( ngc  628 ) , sugerman et al .
( 2006 ) state that  radiative transfer models show that up to 0.02 solar masses of dust has formed within the ejecta " .
however , a recent study ( meikle et al .  2007 ) of the same remnant concludes that the mid - ir flux  is consistent with emission from @xmath10 of newly condensed dust in the ejecta " . in a young , oxygen - rich snr in the smc , stanimirovic et al .
( 2005 ) found only @xmath11 of hot dust ( @xmath12  k ) .
the claimed sub - mm detection ( dunne et al .
2003 ) of @xmath13 of cold dust toward the cas  a remnant was later shown to arise from interstellar dust in an adjacent molecular cloud ( krause et al .
2004 ) .
observational tests of predictions made by models of sne are difficult , involving far - ir and sub - mm observations of young snrs .
one must disentangle far - ir backgrounds , separate newly synthesized dust from circumstellar and interstellar dust , and understand the role of snr reverse shocks , which can destroy newly synthesized dust in high - speed ejecta . a case in point
is sn 1987a .
dust formation was inferred in ejecta of sn  1987a , but only @xmath11 was detected ( dwek 2006 ; dwek & arendt 2007 ) .
additional dust is almost certainly present , because of observed changes in the optical and bolometric fluxes and emission - line asymmetries in the red and blue wings ( mccray 1993 , 2007 ) .
moreover , the reverse shock has not yet reached the interior of the supernova debris in sn  1987a .
these inner ejecta are most prone to dust formation , since they are cold , dense , and metal - enriched .
a challenging theoretical issue is whether high - velocity dust ( @xmath14 km  s@xmath15 ) can survive the shocks , thermal sputtering , and grain - grain collisions , as the ejecta are slowed down by the surrounding ism .
a goal of this paper is to determine how much dust survives the sn event and is incorporated into the surrounding ism .
the relative speed of reverse shocks with respect to the expanding ejecta can be very large , and can raise the temperature of the ejecta to the extent of destroying the nascent dust grains in it .
it is therefore important to study the effect of reverse shocks in detail .
recently , nozawa ( 2007 ) have considered this problem and came to the conclusion , with the help of hydrodynamical simulation , that reverse shocks can destroy a fraction of dust mass of order @xmath16% depending on the ambient gas density and explosion energy .
bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) also used numerical simulations and semi - analytical methods to conclude that only a small amount of dust mass survives ; e.g. , @xmath17% dust mass survives in the case of a sn with a progenitor of mass @xmath18 m@xmath8 and ambient particle density of @xmath19 @xmath20 .
nozawa ( 2007 ) have included the motion of dust relative to gas within the sn remnant and calculated the evolution of dust grains over a period spanning the radiative phase ( @xmath21 yr ) , whereas bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) neglected the effect of motion of grains on dust destruction and calculated dust evolution up to the non - radiative phase ( @xmath22 yr ) .
we study in this paper a simple and analytically tractable problem , namely the effect of reverse shocks for a power - law mass distribution of the ejecta , in the regime of self - similar evolution of both forward and reverse shocks .
although the simple formalism does not allow us to study several important processes including motion of dust grains and its effect on evolution of dust grains our approach allows one to segregate the processes of destruction within the reverse shock itself from those occuring between forward and reverse shocks ( which can be dealt with in numerical simulations involving grain motion ) .
we first summarize the results of the theoretical predictions of dust grain formation in snrs .
todini & ferrara ( 2001 ) calculated the formation of different types of dust grains amorphous carbon ( ac ) , silicates ( enstatites : @xmath23 , forsterites : @xmath24 ) and iron - bearing magnetites ( @xmath25 ) and others , in ejecta with different metallicities .
they found that ac grains are generally of larger size , in the range of @xmath26  m , whereas silicates are produced with sizes @xmath27  m. nozawa ( 2003 ) reached similar conclusions for pop iii sn events , with sizes of newly synthesized grains spanning a range of three orders of magnitude , with maximum grain size being less than @xmath28 m .
the dust grain parameters in the ism are inferred to be somewhat different from these estimates .
the extinction observations are satisfactorily reproduced by assuming mostly of two components graphite and silicate with a common power - law size distribution , @xmath29 , truncated at a minimum size @xmath30 m and a maximum size @xmath31 m ( draine 2003 , and references therein )
. there also appears to be a population of very small grains with pah composition .
nozawa ( 2003 ) found for grains synthesized in pop iii sn ejecta a size distribution with index @xmath32 for smaller grains and with @xmath33 for larger grains ( with the grain size at crossover point depending on supernovae models ) .
we use these two power laws to bracket the possible size distributions of grains synthesized in sn ejecta , and assume that grains are formed in the range @xmath34 cm ( see figure 11 of nozawa ( 2003 )
. we also consider the case of an upper limit of @xmath35 cm and compare our results for both upper limits .
it is instructive to estimate the destruction time scales before we calculate the effect of reverse shock in detail .
the sputtering time scale for dust ( graphite , silicate and iron ) grains of size @xmath36 is approximately @xmath37 yr , for ambient temperatures larger than @xmath38 k ( draine & salpeter 1979 ) , where @xmath39 is electron density . for grains with size @xmath7 @xmath40 ( which incidentally contain most of the dust mass for a @xmath41 distribution ) , and for @xmath42 @xmath43 , the sputtering time scale is @xmath44 yr .
we now briefly discuss the self - similar evolution of forward and reverse shocks in sn ( see truelove & mckee 1999 , hereafter referred to as tm99 , for further details ) .
the parameters used to describe a supernova remnant which affect its evolution are the energy of the explosion ( @xmath45 ) , the mass contained in the expanding ejecta ( @xmath46 ) , the maximum velocity of the material within the ejecta ( @xmath47 ) , and the density of the ism ( @xmath48 ) . denoting the time of the explosion as @xmath49 , we construct our initial conditions at a later time , still early in the history of the remnant , assuming the ejecta to have already expanded to a radius @xmath50 without any deceleration due to the ambient medium .
if we consider sn to be a point explosion , then the radial velocity profile will be linear as ejecta with velocity @xmath51 will travel out to a distance @xmath52 : @xmath53 this profile becomes flatter as time progresses and the faster - moving ejecta are flung out to greater distances .
the corresponding radial density distribution of the ejecta matter is given by : @xmath54 where @xmath55 is the time - independent structure function of the density profile and the @xmath56 term arises from the free expansion of the ejecta .
we define a dimensionless parameter to label shells of the ejecta starting from the centre outwards as w = , 0 w 1 following tm99
we consider the situation when _ f _ is given by a power law in _
w _ : f(w ) = \ {    ll f_0 , & + f_nw^-n , &    . where we have separated the ejecta into a uniform density core region and a power - law envelope region .
the continuity of _ f _ at @xmath57 and the normalization of @xmath58 translate to expressions for parameters @xmath59 and @xmath60 in terms of the free parameters @xmath57 and _ n _ : f_0 & = & f_nw_c^-n + f_n & = & .      as the freely expanding ejecta come into contact with the ambient medium , with the contact discontinuity moving at @xmath47 , a speed much larger than the sound speed in the ambient medium , a forward shock
is set up in the surrounding gas which propagates into the medium .
the ejecta at the contact surface decelerates suddenly as it hits the ambient gas , and consequently , a reverse shock is set up that propagates inwards through the ejecta .
while the mass of this matter swept by the forward shock is less than the total mass of the ejecta driving the shock , the remnant is said to be in the _ ejecta dominated _ or ed stage .
it is in this stage , before the reverse shock has attained a significant velocity , that the ejecta can be approximated as a spherical piston freely expanding into the ambient gas .
when the mass swept by the forward shock becomes approximately equal to the ejecta mass , the corresponding late - time limit is known as the _ sedov - taylor _ or st stage of the evolution of the remnant .
we follow tm99 to follow the evolution of the reverse shock analytically .
let @xmath61 and @xmath62 denote the radii of the forward and reverse shocks , and @xmath63 and @xmath64 be the velocities of the forward and reverse shock waves respectively , all in the rest frame of the unshocked ambient medium .
we have the velocity of the unshocked ejecta as seen by the reverse shock as it propagates into the ejecta : _
r v(r_r , t ) - v_r(t ) = - v_r(t ) .
@xmath65 _ be the ratio of the pressures behind the reverse and forward shock waves and _ l _ be the ratio of the radii of the two shocks at a given time : ( t ) , l(t ) , w_f(t ) .
it is useful to express various parameters in dimensionless forms in the units of characteristic values of these variables .
so that , @xmath66 , @xmath67 , and @xmath68 .
for example , the characteristic scales of length , time and velocity are given by , r_ch&= & m_ej^1/3 _ 0 ^ -1/3 5.25 n_0 ^ -1/3 pc , + t_ch&= & e^-1/2 m_ej^5/6 _ 0 ^ -1/3 1.66 10 ^ 3 n_0 ^ -1/3 yr , + v_ch&= & r_ch / t_ch 3.16 10 ^ 3 km s^-1 .
[ eq : char ] ( we have assumed @xmath69 for he / h@xmath70 by number . ) we have estimated the numerical values for the case @xmath71 erg , @xmath72 g and @xmath73 @xmath20 .
we will therefore write @xmath74 , @xmath75 , and @xmath76 , and the radius of the reverse shock , in particular , as @xmath77 .      the values of @xmath65 and @xmath78 approach constant values as @xmath79 if the solutions remain self - similar in the same limit .
we write @xmath80 and @xmath81 , and also @xmath82 .
the solution to reverse shock evolution exists in the form of two branches , which we label the _ envelope _ ( @xmath83 ) and _ core _
( @xmath84 ) branches . denoting @xmath85 ,
the evolution of the reverse shock is given by , & & t^(r_r^ ) = ( ) ^1/2r_r^ + & & \
{    ll ^-2/(3-n ) , + ^-2/3 ,    .
[ eq : ednl3_1 ] where the first part corresponds to the case @xmath86 and the second part , to @xmath87
. the corresponding velocity of reverse shock in these two cases are , & & v^(r_r^ ) = ( ) ^1/2 + & & \ {    ll , & + , &    .
the relative velocity of the reverse shock in the frame of reference of the expanding ejecta , for the case when the reverse shock is in the envelope region , is given by , _
r^(r_r^ ) = lr_r^3/2 ( ) .
[ eq : ednl3_2 ] note that , since @xmath88 describes the reverse shock , we will define it as ` @xmath89 ' and use it to label shells in the ejecta .
this solution is valid ( in the ed stage ) only as long as the reverse shock remains in the envelope @xmath90 . in the case of @xmath91 ejecta
, there is no need for a core and we can take the limit @xmath92 . for @xmath93 however , we must have a `` flat profile '' core to keep the integrated mass finite .
for the steep index scenario , therefore , the functional form of the solution will change when the reverse shock reaches the core and we will return to this point later .
we now describe the sedov - taylor stage , which is the late - time evolution limit of the non - radiative phase of a supernova remnant .
following tm99 , we assume that the shocks trace a constant acceleration path after transition to the st stage at @xmath94 , which ( approximately ) begins when the mass of the ambient medium shocked by the forward shock equals the mass ejected by the supernova .
thus the velocity of the oncoming ejecta in the frame of the reverse shock is _
r^*(t^ * ) = _ r , st^ * + _ r , st^*(t^ * - t_st^ * ) , [ eq : stnl3_2 ] where @xmath95 is the constant acceleration and @xmath96 is the velocity of the ejecta w.r.t the reverse shock at @xmath94 .
note that @xmath97 .
using this and integrating the resulting expression from @xmath94 to @xmath98 gives r_r ^(t^ ) = t^. [ eq : stnl3_1 ]    for the @xmath91 case , we therefore have an implicit solution for the reverse shock position in the ed stage @xmath99 and an explicit solution in the form of a uniform acceleration description in the st stage . for the @xmath100 case
, we again have an implicit solution in the ed stage at least while @xmath101 .
in fact , an explicit solution for @xmath102 can be determined from the implicit solution in the ed stage for @xmath100 remnants .
we have ( see equation ( 74 ) of tm99 ) , t^(r_r^ ) = ( ) ^1/2r_r^ ^-2/(3-n ) . in this expression
, we can take the limit @xmath92 by allowing @xmath103 , the ejecta energy @xmath104 remaining finite . in this limit @xmath105 and
when the second term in the brackets becomes much larger than unity , we have r_r^(t^ ) = ^1/n ( t^ ) ^ .
[ eq : tlc_n5_1 ] this gives us the velocity of the reverse shock as , _
r ^(t^ ) = ^1/n ( t^ ) ^ -3/n , and correspondingly , _
r^(t^)&= & - v_r^ + & = & ^1/n t^-3/n .
[ eq : tlc_n5_2 ] this is the result arrived at by chevalier ( 1982 ) and nadyozhin ( 1985 ) - henceforth referred to as ` the cn solution ' .
the transition of a supernova remnant with @xmath100 to this stage has been shown to occur extremely fast ( tm99 ) .
thus for all practical purposes , we may assume that the remnant begins with the cn stage .
the reverse shock then moves into the core at @xmath106 .
tm99 assumed that the reverse shock motion after this time is also described by a sedov - taylor trajectory - which leads to better match between the two regimes in terms of continuity of the shock radius and velocity . in the case of @xmath100 , therefore , if we replace @xmath94 by @xmath107 in the st stage equations above , the same analysis follows through .
the numerical values of the parameters @xmath108 and @xmath109 are , of course , different from the parameters for the @xmath91 case : viz @xmath94 and @xmath95 .
we have , r_r^(t^ ) & = & t^ + _
r^(t^ ) & = & _ r , core^+ _ r , core ^(t^- t_core^ ) .
[ eq : tmc_n5_1 ] the values of the parameters used in our calculations have been taken from tm99 , which have been checked with results from simulations .
we thus have the final solutions for the reverse shock as follows . in the case of @xmath91 , equations ( [ eq : ednl3_1 ] ; first part ) and ( [ eq : ednl3_2 ] ) describe the solutions in the ed stage , and , thereafter , equations ( [ eq : stnl3_1 ] ) and ( [ eq : stnl3_2 ] ) are appropriate for solutions in the st stage . for the case of @xmath110 , solutions are given by equations ( [ eq : tlc_n5_1 ] ) and ( [ eq : tlc_n5_2 ] ) in the @xmath101 stage .
afterwards , in the @xmath111 stage , equations ( [ eq : tmc_n5_1 ] ) describe the solutions .
the analytical solutions remain valid until @xmath112 ( tm99 ) , and we calculate the evolution of shocks until this point ( except for @xmath113 ; see below ) .    for a given set of values of @xmath104 and @xmath46
, we can therefore solve for reverse shock position and relative velocity , assuming a density distribution described by index @xmath114 .
the parameter @xmath2 in different cases of @xmath114 , is given by , =( 3 -n 5-n ) ( w_core^-(5-n)-n/5 w_core^-(3-n)-n/3 ) w_core^2 , for @xmath115 , we calculate this in the limit of @xmath116 , and for @xmath110 ( including the case of @xmath113 ) we assume ( following tm99 ) a value of @xmath117 .
values of other parameters ( such as @xmath118 ) are taken from appropriate tables of tm99 for the relevant values of @xmath114 .
we also consider the special case of @xmath113 , for which the mass integral diverges without a core .
we follow the prescriptions of tm99 ( their section 8) for this case ( and , again , assume @xmath117 ) , and track the reverse shock with only ed solution without any transition to the st case . according to tm99 , based on their comparison of analytical and numerical results ,
this prescription gives tolerably good results ( accurate to within @xmath119 ) until @xmath120 .
we have introduced a label to a given shell in the supernova ejecta by @xmath121 , the ratio of the velocity of the ejecta in the shell to the maximum ejecta velocity .
the ejecta in a shell specified by a given @xmath89 first undergoes free expansion ( in the ed stage ) and self - similar expansion ( in the st stage ) until hit by the incoming reverse shock wave .
this occurs at a time , which we call @xmath122 , which is a function of @xmath89 and which is found by equating @xmath89 to the @xmath123 found from the position of the reverse shock .
that is , w = = r_r = w r_ej = w v_ej t_hit . or , in terms of dimensionless variables ,
r_r^= w = ( w ) t_hit ^. this expression for @xmath124 in terms of @xmath125 is equated to the explicit solution for the reverse shock , when available , as a function of time , and the resultant linear equation in @xmath126 and @xmath89 is solved using the bisection method for each given @xmath89 .
this is applicable to the steep ( @xmath100 ) ejecta case ( both the cn and st stage ) as well as to the st stage for shallow ( @xmath91 ) ejecta . for the ed stage of shallow ejecta
, we use @xmath126 as a function of @xmath127 in equation ( [ eq : ednl3_1 ] ) and then employ the bisection method exactly as before to solve for @xmath128 . either way , we can determine @xmath128 given any shell labeled by a @xmath89 in the sn ejecta .
we assume that gas in a given shell of the ejecta evolves adiabatically before @xmath122 .
the temperature is then raised to the postshock temperature and the density acquires a jump , corresponding to the value of relative shock velocity @xmath129 . after @xmath122
, the gas again evolves adiabatically , that is , its density decreases as @xmath56 ( equation [ eq : den ] ) .
its temperature decreases as @xmath130 , for @xmath131 appropriate for monoatomic gas . for a shell with a certain value of @xmath89 , therefore , we have the following evolution of density , ( t , w ) = \ {    ll f(w)t^-3 , & + 4 f(w ) t^-3 , &    .
[ eq : den_ev ] and temperature , t(t , w ) = \ {    ll t_i ( ) ^-2 , & + t_rshock ( ) ^-2 , , &    . where @xmath132 , the post - shock temperature due to the reverse shock with relative velocity @xmath133 .
for a completely ionized gas the mean molecular weight @xmath134 .
we assume a value of @xmath135 k at @xmath136 days , motivated by photometric observations of sn1987a ( catchpole 1987 ) where it was estimated that the photospheric temperature at @xmath137 d after the explosion was @xmath138 k. we have also checked that our results do not depend strongly on these assumptions .      given the above mentioned evolution of density and temperature in shells of ejecta labeled by different values of @xmath89 , we can compute the steady decrease in grain radius , for different types of dust grains .
we use the polynomial fit given by tielens et al ( 1994 ) for graphites and silicates as a function of gas temperature .
they expressed the rate , @xmath139 in powers of @xmath140 , with coefficients for different grain composition tabulated in their table 4 ( see their equation 4.21 ) .
these rates are consistent with recent results of nozawa ( 2006 ) .
we follow a shell of ejecta material labeled by a value @xmath141 from @xmath142 10 years after the explosion ( by which time dust grains are believed to have formed in the cooling ejecta , since the formation time scale is of order a few years ( see , e.g. , todini & ferrara 2001 ) ) , to when the reverse shock hits the shell at @xmath122 and beyond , until a time @xmath143 , which is the limit of the validity of the analytical solutions .
we have calculated the effect of reverse shocks on sputtering of graphite and silicate grains for typical value of explosion energy , stellar ejecta mass and ambient density . below we show the results for @xmath71 erg , @xmath144 g , @xmath145 g @xmath20 .
first , we show the evolution of grain radius ( for graphites and silicates ) for two dust grains embedded in two particular shells , for example , in ejecta characterized by @xmath146 and @xmath71 erg . we show in figure 1 the cases for the shells marked @xmath147 , and @xmath148 . the reverse shock passes through these two shells , first hitting the @xmath149 shell at @xmath150 yr , and then the @xmath147 shell at @xmath151 yr .
the bottom panel of figure 1 shows the rise in temperature for these two shells followed by adiabatic cooling .
initially the temperature drops to very low temperatures due to strong adiabatic cooling , although , in reality , gas can not be cooled below the temperature of the cosmic microwave background , but we have not used such a lower bound in our calculations . at any rate , the post - shock temperature does not depend on the low temperature of the gas upstream , being determined only by the strength of the reverse shock , and so the results of our calculation remains realistic in spite of the strong cooling before the reverse shock hits the gas in a given shell .
figure 2 plots the ratio of final to initial grain sizes as a function of the initial grain sizes for silicates and graphites forming ( and being sputtered ) in shells @xmath152 for the particular case of @xmath146 .
_ since the sputtering yield of silicate grains is larger than that of graphites for a given set of parameters _ , silicates are eroded more rapidly than graphite grains for sputtering in a given ejecta shell . also , the relatively outer shell of @xmath149 experiences less sputtering than the inner shells of @xmath153 and @xmath154 .
this is expected since the reverse shock ( relative ) speed picks up as it plows through the ejecta , increasing with decreasing values of @xmath89 . to illustrate this point , we plot the trend of the relative velocity of the reverse shock as a function of @xmath89 for the shells hit by the shock in figure 3 , for @xmath146 ( solid ) , @xmath155 ( dotted ) , and @xmath156 ( dashed ) . the relative velocity is a rising function with decreasing @xmath89 , for @xmath146 and for @xmath110 , and it is a peaked function for @xmath155 ( and also for @xmath113 , which is not shown here , but as shown by tm99 ) .    however , we notice in figure 2 that grains ( both graphites and silicates ) in shell @xmath153 ( solid curve ) are sputtered to a somewhat lesser extent than grains in the @xmath157 shell , although the relative speed of the reverse shock should be ( according to figure 3 , solid curve for @xmath146 ) higher when it hits the @xmath153 shell than at the @xmath157 shell .
although the post - shock temperature at @xmath153 is higher than at @xmath157 , the shells in the inner region encounter the reverse shock later than shells in the outer region of ejecta , and by the time they encounter it , the density in the inner shells would have decreased rapidly ( see equation [ eq : den_ev ] ) .
the rarefaction in the inner shells at the time of encounter with the reverse shocks lessens the effect of dust sputtering in these shells .
we illustrate this point by considering grains which are sputtered below a certain size , say , @xmath158 cm ( @xmath159 m ) , as a function of the shell in which they reside ( and get sputtered ) .
we determine the maximum size of grains which are sputtered below a size @xmath160 cm , as a function of @xmath89 , for different shells , and present the results in figure 4 .
curves for different values of @xmath114 show the maximum size of grains sputtered below @xmath161 m as a function of the parameter @xmath89 ( left panels ) , as well as against the fraction of ejecta mass that is contained inside of the concerned shell , @xmath162 in the right panels .
results for graphites and silicate grains are shown in the upper and lower panels respectively .
figure 4 clearly shows that sputtering becomes intense in intermediate shells , and decreases ( as a result of rarefaction ) with decreasing value of @xmath89 for small values of @xmath89 .
the sizes of grains which are sputtered below @xmath163 m lie in the range of @xmath164 m @xmath165 m , with silicates more strongly sputtered than graphites . in all cases , the curves of the maximum size of sputtered grains increases with decreasing values of @xmath89 and @xmath162 , finally plunging to very low values for @xmath166 , indicating negligible effect of the reverse shock deep inside the ejecta .
for example , the ( dotted ) curve for @xmath155 shows a peak at @xmath167 below which the maximum size of sputtered grains decreases .    also ,
although it is not explicitly shown in figure 4 , the corresponding results for @xmath168 show that reverse shocks do not penetrate most of the ejecta mass in the time period of the validity range of analytical solutions @xmath112 .
analytical means allow us to probe deep into the ejecta mass distribution only for @xmath91 , and full hydrodynamical models are needed to address the cases of steeper profiles . for steep density distributions ,
the limiting time of @xmath169 is reached by the time the reverse shock only skims the surface of the ejecta , as far as mass fraction is concerned .
the characteristic time in the case considered here ( @xmath71 erg , @xmath72 g , ambient density @xmath145 g @xmath20 ) is @xmath170 yr . although , by the limiting time of @xmath171 yr for the validity of self - similar regime , reverse shocks can hit shells with small @xmath89 in these steep cases , the mass contained inside of these shells remains very large .
in other words , in these cases we can not probe what happens to most of the ejecta mass , or the dust contained in them with analytical means , within the limits of the self - similar regime of shock evolution .
we also note that a substantial amount of grain sputtering takes place in the hot gas between the forward and reverse shock that analytical methods can not capture .
detailed hydrodynamical calculations are needed to address these issues , and our result can only provide a lower limit to the total mass fraction of dust that is destroyed .    finally , we calculate the total dust mass sputtered away as a function of initial grain sizes in the following manner .
we first calculate for a given shell @xmath89 , the final grain size @xmath172 corresponding to the initial grain size @xmath173 .
then the fraction @xmath174 is the total dust mass sputtered for grains formed in this shell .
we then calculate the total dust mass sputtered for all shells ( for a given initial grain size @xmath173 ) , weighted by the shell mass in which they are situated , as given by , f_d
( a_i)= d m(<w ) m_ej , where @xmath175 is the ejecta mass contained within the shell @xmath89 .    we plot these weighted fractions @xmath176 for graphite and silicate grains as functions of @xmath173 for @xmath177 in figure 5 .
thick curves denote the results for silicates and thin ones are for graphite grains .
as expected , the sputtered fraction decreases with increasing @xmath173 , and the fraction for silicates is in general larger than that for graphites .
the total dust mass fraction that is destroyed can then be evaluated from these results by convolving @xmath176 with an initial grain size distribution .
as mentioned earlier , nozawa ( 2003 ) found that the size distribution of synthesized grains is bounded by two power laws , with indices @xmath33 for larger grains and @xmath32 for smaller grains .
we therefore estimate the total dust mass fraction destroyed , assuming a size distribution @xmath178 , with @xmath179 and @xmath180 .
the destroyed fraction of dust mass is given by , f = n(a ) a^3
f_d(a ) da n(a ) a^3 da + , where the grain volume scales as @xmath181 .
the results for graphites and silicates are presented in table 1 , for @xmath177 ( @xmath71 erg , @xmath144 g ) , leaving the cases of @xmath100 for which the reverse shocks do not reach the interiors of the ejecta within the validity range of self - similar solutions .
we assume the lower and upper limit for the integral to be @xmath158 cm and @xmath182 cm respectively , as explained earlier in  2 .
we also calculate the destroyed fractions for a truncated grain size distribution , with an upper limit of @xmath35 cm , and the results are shown inside brackets in table 1 for comparison .
we have further studied the variation of the destroyed dust mass fraction with explosion energy and ejected mass .
tables 2 and 3 show the fraction of dust mass supttered for two sets of parameters : table 2 for @xmath144 g and @xmath183 erg , and table 3 for @xmath184 g and @xmath71 erg .
figure 6 plots the varition of ( logarithm ) of the destroyed dust mass fraction , @xmath185 , for silicates , for different values of explosion energy and ejected mass , and for different mass profiles ( @xmath177 ) .
in the upper panel , we plot the variation of @xmath185 with @xmath46 ( in logarithm ) , keeping the explosion energy constant at @xmath71 erg , and in the lower palnel , we plot ( logarithms of ) @xmath185 with explosion energy @xmath104 , keeping the ejected mass fixed at @xmath186 g. the destroyed fraction generally increases with ejected mass , but its variation with explosion energy is not monotonic .
the reason is that the process of dust destruction depends mainly on two factors : the speed of the reverse shock ( which depends on the characteristic speed @xmath187 ) and the characteristic time , @xmath188 .
now , @xmath189 , whereas @xmath190 .
it would appear that a change in ejected mass manifests itself in increasing @xmath188 , and thereby increasing the destroyed fraction , whereas , a change in @xmath104 affects @xmath188 and @xmath187 in a complicated manner , which results in the variation shown in the bottom panel of figure 6 .
we therefore find that a mass fraction @xmath191 % of silicates and graphite grains created in cooling ejecta can be sputtered away by the reverse shock if the density distribution of the ejecta has a shalow profile ( @xmath192 ) .
nozawa et al ( 2007 ) recently studied sputtering of dust in reverse shock and found a destroyed dust mass fraction of @xmath193 ; their result for an ambient hydrogen number density of @xmath194 @xmath20 and a progenitor mass of @xmath195 m@xmath8 is @xmath196 ( their table 1 ) .
in fact , their result for the ` unmixed grains ' model ( which has to do with spatial mixing of the core heavy - element distribution ) in which the maximum size is @xmath197 m is @xmath198 .
it should be noted , however , that a considerable amount of sputtering in their calculation is caused by the hot plasma between the forward and the reverse shocks ( see  3.3 in nozawa et al ( 2007 ) ) , which we have not considered . in our case , for analytical simplicity , we have assumed the post - reverse shocked gas to be cooling adiabatically .
our results are , therefore , expected to give lower bounds on the actual dust mass fraction destroyed in sn remnants .
there is another reason why the destroyed fraction of dust mass calculated here is lower than that of nozawa et al ( 2007 ) and bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) . strictly speaking
, the destruction rate of tielens et al ( 1994 ) used here is valid for a gas with solar abundance .
the gas in the dust formation region in the supernova ejecta is expected to be metal rich , and the destruction of dust grains in this gas can be more efficient in this case , since sputtering yields by metal ions are much higher in general than by hydrogen and helium ions .
it should be noted that our results for the destroyed fraction is independent of the ambient density , since the gas density enters into our calculation only to change @xmath188 ( notice in equations [ eq : char ] that @xmath187 is independent of ambient density , and so the relative speed of reverse shock , and in turn the post - shock temperature , are also independent of ambient density ) . in reality , however , a lot of grain sputtering would take place between the forward and reverse shock , where the gas density will crucially depend on the ambient density .
this aspect of grain sputtering is neglected in our analytical calculation , but is captured in the simulation results of bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) and nozawa ( 2007 ) .
another difference between our results and those of bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) arises from the assumption of initial grain size distribution .
bianchi & schneider ( 2007 ) used grains of small size in their calculation , with silicate grains smaller than @xmath199 m and graphites smaller than @xmath200 m .
also , their size distribution is more confined to a narrow range than the power law distribution assumed here .
both these factors would enhance the destroyed fraction of dust mass in reverse shocks .
for example , if the sizes of @xmath201 grains have a delta - function distribution around @xmath202 ( see figure 1 of bianchi & schneider 2007 ) , then the curves in figure 2 of the present paper ( say , for @xmath153 ) yield a mass destruction fraction of @xmath203 % ( with @xmath204 ) . for @xmath205 grains of size @xmath206
, we similarly estimate a destroyed mass fraction of @xmath207 % . from figure 2
, we estimate that one requires @xmath208 in order to get @xmath209% destruction of silicate grains .
a note on the observed density distribution of supernovae ejecta is in order here .
chevalier & fransson ( 1994 ) studied a model of the ejecta from a type ii supernova with a shallow ( @xmath115 ) core surrounded by a steep ( @xmath110 ) envelope . in the case of type ia supernovae , a steep density distribution in the ejecta mass has also been discussed in the literature ( colgate & mckee ( 1969 ) ; dwarakadas & chevalier ( 1997 ) ) .
there has been success , however , in modelling data of type ia supernova with uniformly distributed ( @xmath210 ) ejecta ( hamilton & sarazin ( 1984 ) ; hamilton , sarazin & szymkowiak ( 1986 ) ) .
it is worth considering what observations might improve our understanding of the net dust production by sne .
far - infrared and sub - millimeter observations of reverse - shocked dust in young sne by _ spitzer _
, _ herschel _ , and other facilities will help , but our theoretical studies suggest that unshocked ( cold ) dust may harbor a considerable mass of undetected dust . to constrain this dust and distinguish it from surrounding interstellar clouds will probably require sub - mm observations with small beam sizes .
this brings in complications of the circumstellar environment of young sne .
furthermore , the long times ( thousands of years ) required for reverse shocks to reach the core ejecta suggest that late - time observations of supernova remnants would be useful .
we have studied the effect of reverse shocks analytically , in the regime of self - similar evolution , on the sputtering of dust grains that are believed to form in cooling ejecta . for representative cases we found that fractions of dust mass that is destroyed are of order of order @xmath211 % of silicates and graphites , for sn of explosion energy @xmath212 erg , ejecta mass @xmath213 g , and an ambient density @xmath214 g @xmath20 .
our analytical formalism provides only a lower bound on the dust mass fraction that is destroyed by the reverse shock , since it ignores further sputtering of grains in hot plasma between the forward and reverse shocks .
our results are , therefore , consistent with the recent estimates from numerical simulations which include these additional effects .
furthermore , our study provides a formalism to generalize these results to cases with different values of sn parameters .
we thank drs .
r. chevalier , e. dwek , t. nozawa , a. ray and y. shchekinov for helpful discussions .
this work was supported at the university of colorado by nasa theory grant nnx07-ag77 g and nsf theory grant ast07 - 07474 .
bertoldi , f. , carilli , c. l. , cox , p. , fan , x. , strauss , m. a. , beelen , a. , omont , a. & zylka , r. 2003 , a&a , 406 , l55 bianchi , s. & schneider , r. 2007 , mnras , 378 , 973 catchpole , r. m. et al . , mnras , 229 , 15 chevalier , r. a. 1982 , apj , 258 , 790 colgate , s. a. & mckee , c. 1969 , 157 , 623 deneault , e. a. , clayton , d. d. & heger , a. 2003 , apj , 594 , 312 dunne , l. , eales , s. , ivison , r. , morgan , h. , edmunds , m. 2003 , nature , 424 , 285 dwek , e. 2006 , science , 313 , 178 dwek , e. , & arendt , r. g. 2007 , in aip conf .
proc . , supernova 1987a : 20 years after , ed . s. immler , k. weiler , r. mccray , vol .
937 , 58 dwek , e. , & werner , m. w. 1981 , apj , 248 , 138 gerardy , c. l. , fessen , r. a. , hfflich , p. & wheeler , j. c. 2000 , aj , 119 , 2968 gerardy , c. l. 2002 , apj , 575 , 1007 hamilton , a. j. s. & sarazin , c. l. 1984 , apj , 281 , 682 hamilton , a. j. s. , sarazin , c. l. & szymkowiak , a. e. 1986 , apj , 300 , 698 kozasa , t. , hasegawa , h. & nomoto , k. 1989 , apj , 344 , 325 krause , o. , et al .
2004 , nature , 432 , 596 ledoux , c. , bergeron , j. , petitjean , p. 2002
, a&a , 385 , 802 mccray , r. 1993 , ara&a , 31 , 175 mccray , r. 2007 , in aip conf .
proc . , supernova 1987a : 20 years after , ed
. s. immler , k. weiler , r. mccray , vol .
937 , 3 meikle , w.p.s . ,
mattila , s. , et al .
2007 , apj , 665 , 608 morgan , h. l. & edmunds , m. g. 2003 , mnras , 343 , 427 moseley , s. h. , dwek , e. , giaccum , w. , graham , j. r. , loewenstein , r. f. , silverberg , r. f. 1989 , nature , 340 , 697 nadyozhin , d. k. 1985 , ap&ss , 112 , 225 nozawa , t. , kozasa , t. , umeda , h. , maeda , k. & nomoto , k. 2003 , apj , 598 , 785 nozawa , t. , kozasa , t. , habe , a. 2006 , apj , 648 , 435 nozawa , t. et al .
2007 , astro - ph/0706.0383 pettini , m. , smith , l. j. , hunstead , r. w. & king , d. l. 1994 , apj , 426 , 79 schneider , r. , ferrara , a. & salvaterra , r. 2004 , mnras , 351 , 1379 seab , c. g. & shull , j. m. 1983 , apj , 275 , 652 shull , j. m. 1978 , apj , 226 , 858 stanimirovic , s. , et al .
2005 , apj , 632 , l103 sugerman , b. e. k. et al .
2006 , science , 313 , 196 tielens , a. g. g. m. , mckee , c. f. , seab , c. g. & hollenbach , d. j. , 1994 , apj , 431 , 321 todini , p. & ferrara , a. 2001 , mnras , 325 , 726 truelove , j. k. & mckee , c. f. 1999 , apj , 120 , 299 ( tm99 ) whittet , d. c. b. 1992 , _ dust in the galactic environment _ , iop publishing , great britain .


intermolecular vibrational energy transfer occurs in a quite large number of chemical processes ranging from simple chemical reactions to very complicated molecular systems like molecular motors .
it has been the subject of numerous publications @xcite . among the large variety of experimental techniques used to investigate intramolecular or intermolecular energy transfer ,
two important spectroscopic methods have been quite successful these last decades .
the first one is based on the infrared pump - probe spectroscopy technique .
it enables an indirect measurement of the intermolecular energy transfer by bleaching the population at the pumping laser frequency and testing the subsequent ground state recovery by a time delayed probe pulse .
a typical situation is the one reported by bakker _
@xcite on the study of vibrational energy transfer , after excitation of the c - h stretching mode in chloroform and bromoform dissolved in polar and non - polar solvent , where an important increase of vibrational energy transfer resulting from the molecule - solvent dipole - dipole interaction has been observed .
similar conclusions have been reached for resonant intermolecular vibrational energy transfer in liquid water from rotational anisotropy measurements @xcite .
the second archetype of experiments takes advantage of the proportionality between the time - dependence of the raman active transition and the population time dependence to apply infrared pump coupled to anti - stokes - raman - probe technique to study vibrational energy redistribution in polyatomic liquids such as water , deuterated water and methanol @xcite .
today , ultrafast two - dimensional infrared ( 2d - ir ) spectroscopy which has been used for more than a decade to study dynamics and structures of large molecular complexes @xcite , charge transfer @xcite , chemical reactions @xcite as well as vibrational coupling and vibrational energy relaxation @xcite , offers an interesting method to directly probe the intermolecular vibrational energy transfer @xcite .
in addition , it does not require the probe vibrational mode to be involved in the intermolecular vibrational energy transfer and can display interactions and dynamics that are not accessible by traditional linear infrared vibrational absorption measurements .    in a recent experimental work ,
et al _ @xcite have used 2d - ir spectroscopy to directly probe the intermolecular vibrational energy transfer between benzonitrile and acetonitrile-@xmath0 molecules . using an experimental setup based on three transform - limited ir femtosecond laser pulses and heterodyne detection to phase - resolve and to amplify the vibrational echo signal , they directly probe the vibrational energy transfer between the two molecules . in these 2d - ir spectroscopy experiments ,
three different types of variables are involved .
the first one is the emitted vibrational echo frequency .
the second one is the delay time between two laser pulses , most frequently the first and the second ones
. it will be numerically fourier transformed for each vibrational echo frequency to give a second frequency mapping .
finally , the third one corresponds to the time of delay between the two last laser pulses .
it is just due to this last parameter that the cross peak , which is the signature of the intermolecular energy transfer , appear in 2d - ir spectra .
when the molecular vibrational states participating in the transfer of energy are dark states , most probably made of combination states of low frequency modes with very weak dipole moments or not at all optically active , coherence transfer between these combination states and an optically active vibrational state induces a cross - peak which becomes the signature of the energy transfer process .
it is the intention of this work to describe the appearance of this cross - peak and to analyze in detail the influence of the dynamical constants on its magnitude . in sec.2
, we introduce the vibrational structure of the individual molecules participating in the energy transfer .
then , the energy level structure of the global system undergoing the dynamics induced by the femtosecond laser pulses is built in terms of the physical constants of the individual molecules . in sec.3
, we describe the general dynamics induced by the three femtosecond laser pulses and resulting from the relaxation , dephasing , and coherence transfer processes .
then , the 2d - ir spectra will be evaluated and discussed according to the roles of the physical constants .
finally , in the last section , numerical simulations exhibit the main features which characterize the identification of the energy transfer process through the appearance of the cross - peak observed experimentally .
the physical process underlying the 2d - ir vibrational spectrum of a molecular system is based on the interaction of three delayed infrared pulses with the molecular system under investigation .
as usual , the interaction hamiltonian of the laser - system interaction is given by @xmath1 \label{2.1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the notation c.c .
stands for the complex conjugate part . the symbol @xmath2 stands for the normalized envelops of the three laser pulses defined as @xmath3 with @xmath4 .
this is a convenient form for later analytical evaluation and its time - integrated form is physically acceptable and has been used extensively .
all the laser pulses are centered at @xmath5 with a time duration of @xmath6 and with their amplitudes arbitrarily fixed . as usual
, @xmath7 is the dipole moment operator and the quantities @xmath8 and @xmath9 are standard notations for the frequency and wave vector of the field @xmath10 , respectively .
it is worthy of note that in time - domain nonlinear spectroscopy , the pulse delay time @xmath11 are retained in the pulse envelops only , because they act just like arbitrary factors @xmath12 and can be compensated by the phase of the local field oscillator for heterodyne detected signals or just cancel in homodyne detection . to analyze 2d - spectra ,
it is necessary to perform a fourier transform over pulse delay time .
the above mentioned factors have to be retained .
moreover , for 2d - ir experiments , it is convenient to use the photon - echo geometry .
therefore , it is also adopted in our theoretical calculation .
it is well established that photon - echo and many other related nonlinear optical processes @xcite are described by the third - order perturbation term of the density matrix with respect to the laser - molecule interaction @xmath13 defined previously by eq.([2.1 ] ) .
then , the contribution to the third - order term of the density matrix , @xmath14 , that is relevant to the three - pulse process discussed here , takes the form @xmath15 where the interaction liouvillian is defined by @xmath16 $ ] .
the various @xmath17 are free evolution liouvillians of the vibrational system , corresponding to @xmath18 if @xmath19 $ ] with @xmath20 the free vibrational model hamiltonian .
the evolution liouvillian @xmath21 account for the evolution of the populations from @xmath22 .
the other two evolution liouvillians , namely @xmath23 with @xmath24 and @xmath25 with @xmath26 and @xmath27 account for the evolution of the coherences .
notice that the last liouvillian describes coherence transfer between the quasi - resonant transitions @xmath28 and @xmath29 . the emitted signal along the rephasing phase - matched direction @xmath30 and the nonrephasing direction @xmath31 is deduced from the polarization @xmath32    \label{2.3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath33 stands for @xmath34 or @xmath35 .
heterodyne detection of nonlinear signals has been discussed extensively by joffre _
et al _ @xcite . and
will be introduced to amplify the emitted signal . to this end , an appropriate local field oscillator is introduced @xmath36 \label{2.4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the various constants are similar to the ones introduced for the exciting laser fields and @xmath37 is an additional phase of this local field .
also , we use the relation between polarization @xmath38 and signal field @xmath39 obtained from maxwell equations @xcite , say @xmath40 to simulate the experimental procedure where the fourier transform and next the squared magnitude are performed successively , the detected heterodyne signal intensity can be expressed as @xcite @xmath41 using heterodyne detection .
if , as usual , the intensity of the signal field is negligible and the one of the local field is subtracted from the total intensity , then @xmath42 three conditions were imposed according to the assumptions made by lepetit _
et al _ @xcite . first , the laser pulses present clean fast leading edges .
second , time origin can be chosen for convenience , and here it is fixed at the center of the last pulse .
third , the signal field obeys the causality principle .
these conditions imply that @xmath39 is negligible for @xmath43 so that the fourier transform with respect to time can be performed over positive time only .
notice that , all high frequency terms are neglected .    for our purpose ,
the evaluation of the 2d - ir spectrum requires the calculation of the double fourier transform over the delay time @xmath44 between the pulses and the experimental time @xmath45 . in the first fourier
transform over @xmath46 , the delay time @xmath46 changes sign . therefore ,
the experimental waiting time @xmath47 has to be defined as @xmath48 , according to the prescription of jonas @xcite . since the center of the third laser pulse
is fixed at the time origin , the 2d - ir spectra can be obtained as @xmath49 and this is the basic quantity for evaluating any 2d - ir spectra .
the formal expression of the third - order polarization in the phase - matched directions @xmath50 or @xmath35 , required for simulating any 2d - ir experiment , is given in the basis set @xmath51 of the total vibrational molecular system . from eq.([2.2 ] ) , the density matrix elements can be written as @xmath52 each @xmath53 specifies a particular pathway in the liouvillian space of the total molecular system contributing to the density matrix elements @xmath54 .
the symbol @xmath55 stands for the summation over the various combinations of fields .
these combinations must satisfy the phase - matching condition in the framework of the rotating wave approximation .
that is , only the combinations of field components satisfying the secular approximation are retained .
in addition , the symbol @xmath56 means that only the values of @xmath53 associated with the particular density matrix element @xmath54 must be included . at least for markovian systems ,
the general mathematical structure of @xmath57 is of the type @xmath58 which enables a great simplification for further time integrations .
the amplitudes @xmath59 and the exponential arguments @xmath60 , @xmath61 , @xmath62 , and @xmath63 will all be obtained by identification of eq.([2.9 ] ) with all the compatible combinations of the product @xmath64 of matrix elements deduced from eq.([2.2 ] ) . each combination with specified indices @xmath65
is associated with a specific pathway @xmath53 .
this implies that each particular value of @xmath53 stands for one particular combination of @xmath65 .
all of the pathways will be evaluated in the next section according to our specific model .    at this stage ,
the different matrix elements of liouvillian evolution operator participating in free evolution have to be evaluated .
notice that the matrix elements of the free evolution liouvillian of the type @xmath23 are diagonal in the coherence liouvillian subspace and have the general form @xmath66 where , as usual , @xmath67 .
meanwhile , other matrix elements of the type @xmath68 and @xmath69 with @xmath70 and @xmath71 need to be evaluated based on a specific model .
this evaluation will be done in the next section based on a specific model of vibrational energy exchange taking place between two different molecules .
the molecular model undergoing intermolecular vibrational energy transfer between two molecules through a process of combination band absorption @xcite and occurring among low frequency vibrational modes , can be described by the hamiltonian @xmath72 where each individual molecular hamiltonian @xmath73 is made of two parts , namely , an anharmonic vibrational mode @xmath74 and a low frequency vibrational modes @xmath75 .
the particular system studied in the following is the complex of acetonitrile-@xmath0 ( a ) and benzonitrile ( b ) , and the combination bands are most probably identified as the c - d bending mode in the deuterated methyl group of a and the benzene ring breathing mode in b @xcite .
the relevant parameters of the individual molecules including energy levels and nonradiative transition rate constants , as well as the transition dipole moments @xmath76 of the individual molecules with corresponding transition energies pertaining to the 2d - ir spectral range investigated , are shown in fig.[fig1 ] .
then , according to the sum rules     ( a ) and benzonitrile ( b ) .
the various transition constants @xmath77 associated with the individual molecules are indicated by the single - headed arrows in the figure .
the allowed dipole moments are indicated by double - headed arrows .
the sets of states @xmath78 and @xmath79 stand for the corresponding combination bands of their respective low frequency modes . ]
@xmath80 and the definitions of the dephasing constants @xmath81 for the individual molecules , we can evaluate the various dynamical parameters of the total system .
as usual , @xmath82 , @xmath77 , @xmath83 and @xmath84 stand for the total decay rates , the transition constants , the dephasing and the pure dephasing constants of the individual molecules . for the total system ,
the corresponding quantities are denoted @xmath85 , @xmath86 , @xmath87 and @xmath88 , respectively .
notice that for small energy gaps , temperature effects can be efficient so that direct and reverse transition rate constants , related by detailed balance , are introduced .
for the @xmath89 transitions , we have the temperature dependence @xmath90 and similar relation exists for the @xmath91 and @xmath92 transitions .     and
dipole moments associated to the total system are indicated using the same symbols as in fig.[fig1 ] .
the set of states of the total vibrational system are defined at the bottom of the figure . ]
we still have to introduce the coherence transfer constants @xmath93 .
they introduce a coupling between the coherences associated to the transitions @xmath94 and @xmath95 .
the phenomenon of coherence transfer is now well established experimentally and has been observed in a wide range of systems including photodissociation of triatomic molecules @xcite , photobiological process in light harvesting compounds @xcite or temperature - dependent spontaneous raman spectra of high - frequency c - h vibrations in microwave rotational spectra @xcite .
moreover , it has also been considered theoretically @xcite . in the present system ,
the more important consequence of coherence transfer , especially between closely - lying vibrational energy levels , is the ability of observing dark transitions appearing as extra - peaks in the 2d - ir spectra .
all of the vibrational states of the total molecular system are described at the bottom of fig.[fig2 ] where their corresponding dipole moments and transition constants are presented . from the laser - molecule interactions among the set of states ranging from @xmath96 to @xmath97 and their corresponding relaxation constants ,
the various pathways in the total liouvillian space participating in the dynamical evolution can be determined . as usual , only pathways satisfying the rotating wave approximation ( rwa ) will be retained .
the individual pathways are given in appendix a and their corresponding contributions to the various density matrix elements can be obtained from eq.([2.2 ] ) , from the knowledge of the coherence evolution previously established , and also from the population and coherence transfer evolutions that need to be evaluated .
this has to be done according to the specific vibrational model of energy transfer .
the evolution of the populations is straightforwardly deduced from the zeroth - order liouville equation @xmath98 where , in the present model , the relaxation liouvillian takes the form @xmath99 } \;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{2233}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1'1'2'2'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{22ll}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{11ll}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1'1'l'l'}}\;\ssc{0}\\ \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[3,3,3,3]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1122}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{2'2'3'3'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{2'2'l'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1'1'l'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{11ll}}\\ \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[4,4,4,4]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{22ll}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\\   \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[5,5,5,5]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{22ll}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{2'2'l'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{22ll}}\\ \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[6,6,6,6]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{22ll}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{2'2'l'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\\ \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{ll22}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[7,7,7,7]}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{lll'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1122}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1'1'2'2'}}\\   \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'2'2'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'll}}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[8,8,8,8]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1'1'2'2'}}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{1122}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\\   \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{ll22}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[9,9,9,9]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{lll'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\\   \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'2'2'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[10,10,10,10]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'll}}\\   \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'2'2'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{l'l'll}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[11,11,11,11]}\;&\;\ssc{0}\\ \ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{ll22}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{{\gamma}_{lll'l'}}\;&\;\ssc{0}\;&\;\ssc{\gamma[12,12,12,12 ] } \end{pmatrix } \nonumber\\ & & \label{3.4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] besides , from our model , the total decay rates are related to the transition rates constants by the expressions given in table [ 1 ]    xxx @xmath100=0}$ ] & @xmath100=-\sum_{u=1,7}\gamma[u , u,2,2]}$ ] & @xmath101=-\sum_{u=1,8}\gamma[u , u,3,3]}$ ] + @xmath102=-\sum_{u=2,9}\gamma[u , u,4,4]}$ ] & @xmath103=-\sum_{u=2,3,11,12}\gamma[u , u,5,5]}$ ] & @xmath104=-\sum_{u=3,10}\gamma[u , u,6,6]}$ ] + @xmath105=-\sum_{u=1,2,8}\gamma[u , u,7,7]}$ ] & @xmath106=-\sum_{u=1,3,7}\gamma[u , u,8,8]}$ ] & @xmath107=-\sum_{u=2,4,7,11}\gamma[u , u,9,9]}$ ] + @xmath108=-\sum_{u=6,8,3,12}\gamma[u , u,10,10]}$ ] & @xmath109=-\sum_{u=2,5,8,9}\gamma[u , u,11,11]}$ ] & @xmath110=-\sum_{u=3,5,7,10}\gamma[u , u,12,12]}$ ] +    then , by identifying the integral representation of the density matrix with the definition of the population evolution liouvillian , it is found that @xmath111^{-1}_{mmnn}\g{\rho}_{nn}(t_0 ) = \sum_{m}\g{g}_{mmnn}(t - t_0)\g{\rho}_{nn}(t_0 ) \label{3.5}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the evolution liouvillians in the population subspace are deduced from the diagonalization of @xmath112^{-1}$ ] .
they correspond to @xmath113 for the ground state and all the other matrix elements can be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues @xmath114 and the components of their corresponding eigenvectors @xmath115 of @xmath112^{-1}$ ] , so that @xmath116     and @xmath117 . the same processes occurs between transitions @xmath118 and @xmath119 as illustrated in this figure . ]
it remains to calculate the evolution liouvillian associated with the coherence transfer processes depicted in fig.[fig3 ] . to this end
, we have to diagonalize the evolution liouvillian in the coherence subspace .
only , the coherence subspace @xmath120 coupled by the coherence transfer constants need to be considered . as shown in fig.[fig3 ] , they are the @xmath121 and @xmath122 transitions in the first case , as well as the @xmath123 and @xmath124 transitions in the second case . therefore , in the liouvillian subspace where coherence transfer takes place , we have for @xmath70 and @xmath71 @xmath125 now , we have all the required quantities to perform the analytical evaluation and subsequent numerical simulations of the 2d - ir spectra for a system undergoing energy transfer .
eq.(3.7 ) indicates that the coherence transfer processes are described by the coherence transfer constants @xmath126 and @xmath127 involving the dark states @xmath128 and @xmath129 of the benzonitrile and acetonitrile-@xmath130 molecules , respectively .
therefore , by coupling a dark state to an optically active state , it is possible to visualize on the two - dimensional spectrum the resonance associated with the energy transfer .
from the previous sections , the expressions of the liouville evolution operators in the population , coherence and coherence transfer subspaces can be deduced straightforwardly and evaluated for all the matrix elements appearing in the various pathways given in appendix a. once their expressions , taken for a given path , are introduced in eq.([2.2 ] ) and identified with the density matrix element ( [ 2.9 ] ) using the formal expression ( [ 2.10 ] ) for @xmath131 , the various quantities @xmath60 , @xmath61 , @xmath62 , @xmath63 and @xmath59 can be obtained for each individual pathway .
the final step to obtain the analytical expression of the 2 d - ir spectrum is the triple time integration plus the double fourier transform over @xmath46 and @xmath45 .
they need to be performed for each field ordering , as well as for the two definitions of @xmath46 according to the sign of @xmath132 .
their expressions are a little bit cumbersome .
for this reason , they will not be presented here . as an example , we give the expression corresponding to the field ordering @xmath133 .
other ones , can be evaluated as well .    at this stage , it is necessary to introduce all of the numerical values required to perform the numerical simulations from the analytical results describing the vibrational energy exchange between the acetonitrile-@xmath0 and benzonitrile molecules , chosen as the model system .
@xmath134&@xmath135&@xmath136&@xmath137 +   + @xmath138&@xmath139&@xmath140&@xmath141 +    for simplicity , only one combination band state per molecule will be retained in the following simulations .
the energies of the acetonitrile-@xmath130 and benzonitrile molecules are given in table [ 2 ] .
.numerical values of the total decay rates , transition rate constants and pure dephasing constants of the individual molecules .
all of the numerical values are given in units of ps . [
cols="<,<,<,<",options="header " , ]
first , we introduce various constants useful for simplify the final expressions @xmath142 then , for the laser field interaction ordering @xmath133 and a positive delay time @xmath143 , there are @xmath144=\;\;\;\frac{c_0^+\e^{-c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a}-\frac{\e^{-c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a)}+\frac{\e^{-c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a-\gamma_a ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{2,cba}^+[n,\alpha]=-\frac{\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t}-c[n,\alpha , a]t}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a)}-\frac{c_{1,cba}^+[n,\alpha]\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t}}{b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b }   $ }         \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{c_0^+\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a)}+\frac{\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a-\gamma_a ) } $ }      \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{3,cba,1}^+[n,\alpha]=-\frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a ) }     $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm -\frac{c_{1,cba}^{+}[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b ) } + \frac{c_{1,cba}^{+}[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b ) }     $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm   -\frac{c_{2,cba}^+[n,\alpha]}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c}+\frac{c_{2,cba}^+[n,\alpha]}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{3,cba,2}^+[n,\alpha]=-\frac{\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{c_0^+\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]+i\omega_d - i\omega_a ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_a-\gamma_a ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm -\frac{c_{1,cba}^+[n,\alpha]\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)}-\frac{c_{2,cba}^+[n,\alpha]\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t-\gamma_ct}}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c }    $ }    \label{b.2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the first contribution for positive delay time @xmath132 and field ordering @xmath133 is given by @xmath145=-\sum_{\alpha}tf_{\omega_{lo}}(\omega_t)q[n,\alpha , a , b , c]k_t $ }   \nonumber\\   & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.4truecm\times\biggl\lbrack\;\;\ ;   \frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)}$ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 2.4truecm\times \frac{1}{(i\omega_d - i\omega_a+\gamma_a)(k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{c_{1,cba}^+[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c ] -\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm + \frac{c_{2,cba}^+[n,\alpha]}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c)(k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c ) } + \frac{c_{3,cba,1}^+[n,\alpha]}{k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t } + \frac{c_{3,cba,2}^+[n,\alpha]}{k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t}$ }   \biggr\rbrack   .
\label{b.3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the same ordering of the laser pulses , say @xmath133 and a negative delay time @xmath146 , it is found that @xmath147=\;\;\;\frac{\e^{-c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a}-\frac{\e^{-c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a ) }        $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{2,cba}^-[n,\alpha]=\;\;\;\frac{\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b)}-\frac{c_{1,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t}}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b ) }   $ }         \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.6truecm + \frac{c_0 ^ -\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(-b[n,\alpha , a , b]-c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a + i\omega_d - i\omega_b)(c[n,\alpha , a ] + \gamma_a)}-\frac{\e^{-b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t}}{(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a+\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b+\gamma_b ) } $ }    \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{3,cba,1}^-[n,\alpha]=\;\;\;\frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b ) }     $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm -\frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b ) }   $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm   -\frac{c_{2,cba}^-[n,\alpha]}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c } + \frac{c_{2,cba}^-[n,\alpha]}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c }   -\frac{c_{1,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b+\gamma_b)}$ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm   + \frac{c_{1,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b)}$ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr c_{3,cba,2}^-[n,\alpha]=\;\;\;\frac{\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm -\frac{c_0 ^ -\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c - b[n,\alpha , a , b]-c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a+i\omega_d - i\omega_b)(-b[n,\alpha , a , b]-c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a+i\omega_d - i\omega_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]t+\gamma_a ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm -\frac{\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t - c[n,\alpha , a]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a+\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]+c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a+\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]+\gamma_a)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b+\gamma_b ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.9truecm -\frac{c_{1,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t - b[n,\alpha , a , b]t-\gamma_ct}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b)}-\frac{c_{2,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]t-\gamma_ct}}{a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+\gamma_c }    $ }    \label{b.4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the second contribution for negative delay time @xmath146 is @xmath148=-\sum_{\alpha}tf_{\omega_{lo}}(\omega_t)q[n,\alpha , a , b , c]k_t $ }   \nonumber\\   & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 0.8truecm\times\biggl\lbrack\;\;\ ; \frac{\e^{-\gamma_at-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_a+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_b)(c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a ) }   $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.8truecm\times \frac{1}{(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b)(k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]+c[n,\alpha , a]-\gamma_a-\gamma_b ) } $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.3truecm + \frac{c_{1,cba}^-[n,\alpha]\e^{-\gamma_bt}}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b)(i\omega_d - i\omega_b-\gamma_b )                  ( k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c+b[n,\alpha , a , b]-\gamma_b ) }    $ }   \nonumber\\ & & \mbox{$\scr\hskip 1.3truecm + \frac{c_{2,cba}^-[n,\alpha]}{(a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c)(k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t+a[n,\alpha , a , b , c]-\gamma_c ) } + \frac{c_{3,cba,1}^-[n,\alpha]}{k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t } + \frac{c_{3,cba,2}^-[n,\alpha]}{k[n,\alpha , a , b , c]+i\omega_t }    $ }   \biggr\rbrack \label{b.5}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the contribution to the 2d - ir spectrum with field ordering @xmath133 is given by @xmath149=h(t_b - t_a)i_{cba}^+[n,\omega_d,\omega_t]+h(t_a - t_b)i_{cba}^-[n,\omega_d,\omega_t ] \label{b.6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath150 stands for the heaviside function . the contributions for any other field ordering can be evaluated as well
.    99 a. a. stuchebrukhov and r. a. marcus , j. chem .
phys . * 98 * , 8443 ( 1993 ) . z. h. wang and a. pakoulev and d. d. dlott , science * 296 * , 2201 ( 2002 ) .
g. c. schatz and r. p. van duyne , in _ handbook of vibrational spectroscopy _ , edited by j.   m. chalmers and p.  r. griffiths ( wiley , chichester , 2002 ) .
r. rey and k. b. moller and j. t. hynes , chem .
( washington d. c. ) * 104 * , 1915 ( 2004 ) . c. g. elles and f. f. crim , annu .
chem . * 57 * , 273 ( 2006 ) .
g. marcotte and p. ayotte , j. chem .
phys . * 134 * , 114522 ( 2011 ) . h.
j. bakker and p. c. m. planken and a. lagendijk , nature * 347 * , 745 ( 1990 ) .
s. woutersen and h. j. bakker , nature * 402 * , 507 ( 1999 ) .
d. d. dlott , chem . phys . * 266 * , 149 ( 2001 ) .
m. f. decamp and l. deflores and j. m. mccraken and a. tokmakoff and k. kwak and m. cho , j. phys . chem . *
b 109 * , 11016 ( 2005 ) .
i. j. finkelstein and j. r. zheng and h. ishikawa and s. kim and k. kwak and m. d. fayer , phys .
* 9 * , 1533 ( 2007 ) .
m. kozinski and s. garrett - roe and p. hamm , j. phys .
b 112 * , 7645 ( 2008 ) .
l. w. barbour and m. hegadorn and j. b. asbury , j. phys .
b 110 * , 24281 ( 2006 ) .
l. w. barbour and m. hegadorn and j. b. asbury , j. am .
chem . soc . * 129 * , 15884 ( 2007 ) .
j. zheng and k. kwak and j. xie and m. d. fayer , science * 313 * , 1951 ( 2006 ) .
c. kolano and j. helbing and m. kozinski and w. sander and p. hamm , nature * 444 * , 469 ( 2006 ) .
j. f. cahoon and k. r. sawyer and j. p. schlegel and c. b. harris , science * 319 * , 1820 ( 2008 ) .
m. khalil and n. demirdven and a. tokmakoff , j. chem .
* 121 * , 362 ( 2004 ) .
m. j. nee and c. r. baiz and j. m. anna and r. mccanne and k. j. kubarich , j. chem .
phys . * 129 * , 084503 ( 2008 ) . s. r. g. naraharisetty and v. m. kasyanenko and i. v. rubtsov , j. chem .
phys . * 128 * , 104502 ( 2008 ) . h. bian and j. li and x. wen and j. zheng , j. chem .
phys . * 132 * , 184505 ( 2010 ) .
h. bian and w. zhao and j. zheng , j. chem .
* 131 * , 124501 ( 2009 ) .
h. bian and x. wen and j. li and j. zheng , j. chem .
phys . * 133 * , 034505 ( 2010 ) .
h. bian and j. li and x. wen and z. sun and j. song and w. zhuang and j. zheng , j. phys .
chem . * a 115 * , 3357 ( 2011 ) .
h. bian and h. chen and j. li and x. wen and j. zheng , j. phys .
chem . * a 115 * , 11657 ( 2011 ) .
m. cho and n. f. scherer and g. r. fleming and s. mukamel , j. chem .
phys . * 96 * , 5618 ( 1992 ) .
y. tanimura and s. mukamel , phys . rev . *
e 47 * , 118 ( 1993 ) . v.  v. lozovoy and i. pastirk and m.  g. comstock and m. dantus , chem .
phys . * 266 * , 205 ( 2001 ) .
k.  f. everitt and e. geva and j.  l. skinner , j. chem .
phys . * 114 * , 1326 ( 2001 ) .
b.  i. grimberg and v.  v. lozovoy and m. dantus and s. mukamel , j. phys .
chem . * a 106 * , 697 ( 2002 ) .
v.  v. lozovoy and b.  i grimberg and i. pastirk and m. dantus , chem . phys . *
267 * , 99 ( 2001 ) .
m. khalil and a. tokmakoff , chem . phys . * 266 * , 213 ( 2001 ) .
m. khalil and n. demirdven and a. tokmakoff , phys .
lett . * 90 * , 047401 ( 2003 ) .
l. lepetit and m. joffre , opt .
* 21 * , 564 ( 1996 ) .
j. p. likforman and m. joffre and v. thierry - mieg , opt .
* 22 * , 1104 ( 1997 ) .
n. belabas and m. joffre , opt
* 27 * , 2043 ( 2002 ) .
m. j. burns and w. k. liu and a. h. zewail , in _ spectroscopy and excitation dynamics of condensed molecular systems _
, edited by v. m. agranovich and r. m. hochstrasser ( north - holland publishing company , amsterdam , 1983),chapter 7 .
m. cho , in _ two - dimensional optical spectroscopy _ ( crc press , new york , 2009 ) , p. 61 .
p. hamm and m. zanni , in _ concepts and methods of 2d infrared spectroscopy _
( cambridge university press , cambridge , 2011 ) , chapter 4 . l. lepetit and g. cheriaux and m. joffre , j. opt .
. am . * b 12 * , 2467 ( 1995 ) . s. m. g. faeder and d. m. jonas , j. phys .
chem . * a 103 * , 10489 ( 1999 ) .
m. khalil and n. demirdven and a. tokmakoff , j. phys .
chem . * a 107 * , 5258 ( 2003 ) .
e. gershgoren and e. gordon and s. ruhman , j. chem . phys . *
106 * , 4806 ( 1997 ) . j. m. jean and r. a. friesner and g. r. fleming , j. chem . phys . * 96 * , 5827 ( 1992 ) .
s. a. henck and k. k. lehmann , chem .
* 144 * , 281 ( 1988 ) .
d. w. oxtoby , j. phys . chem . * 87 * , 3028 ( 1983 )
. k. f. freed and a. a. villaeys , chem .
* 39 * , 51 ( 1979 ) .
p. de bree and d. a. wiersma , j. chem .
phys . * 70 * , 790 ( 1979 ) .
y. ohtsuki and y. fujimura , j. chem . phys .
* 104 * , 8321 ( 1996 ) .