CZ:Featured article/Current: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chunbum Park
imported>John Stephenson
(template)
 
(89 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''[[Food reward]]''' ==
{{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}}
----
<small>
Food intake involves both 'homeostatic feeding' (energy demands) and ‘non-homeostatic feeding’; the latter is associated with  '''food reward''', which involves both 'liking’ (pleasure/palatability) and ‘wanting’ (incentive motivation) according to the ''salience theory''. Experiments in mice suggest that ‘liking’ involves the release of mu-[[opioid peptide]]s in brain, while ‘wanting’ involves the neurotransmitter [[dopamine]] <ref>Berridge KC (2007) The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience. ''Psychopharmacology'' 191:391–431</ref>.
==Footnotes==
 
==='''Motivated behaviour and food as a reinforcer'''===
The brain’s reward systems react to stimuli such as sight, smell and taste, and other cues that predict food. However, hunger cannot result in unconditioned goal-directed behaviour; <ref>Changizi MA ''et al.'' (2002) Evidence that appetitive responses for dehydration and food-deprivation are learned ''Physiol Behav'' 75:295–304</ref> chance encounters with palatable foods are required before goal-directed behaviour can occur, which link the internal needs with the salience of environmental stimuli <ref>Wise RA (2006) Role of brain dopamine in food reward and reinforcement ''Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci'' 361:1149–58</ref>For exa mple, an infant recognises and learns to seek out sweet tastes, but the desire for any particular food is controlled by the interaction of peptide levels (related to hunger) with neural circuits in the brain which store the animal’s past experience of that particular food. <ref>Steiner JE ''et al.''(2001) Comparative expression of hedonic impact: affective reactions to taste by human infants and other primates ''Neurosci Biobehav Rev'' 25:53–74</ref> Subsequently, the infant will taste both food and non-food objects indiscriminately until it has received reinforcing feedback from enough stimuli. A monkey’s appetite for yellow bananas requires that the monkey learns to relate the sight of the yellow skin of a banana with the sweet taste of the banana, plus the consequences of eating it. Preference for a particular food results only when the post-ingestional consequences of that food ’reinforce’ the tendency to eat that food. For these reasons, food is considered to be a strong reinforcer. When the response of a behaviour stimulated by a reinforcer increases the frequency of that  behaviour; that is ''positive reinforcement'' or ''reward learning'', and the positive events are called ''rewards'' <ref>Epstein LH ''et al.''(2007) Food reinforcement and eating: a multilevel analysis ''Psychol Bull'' 133:884–906</ref>. The reinforcing efficacy of food reward is the ability of the reward to maintain rather than to establish behaviour; consequently the stimulus learning contributes to the response learning.
 
''[[Food reward|.... (read more)]]''
 
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
|-
! style="text-align: center;" | &nbsp;[[Food reward#References|notes]]
|-
|
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
|}
</small>

Latest revision as of 10:19, 11 September 2020

In computational molecular physics and solid state physics, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is used to separate the quantum mechanical motion of the electrons from the motion of the nuclei. The method relies on the large mass ratio of electrons and nuclei. For instance the lightest nucleus, the hydrogen nucleus, is already 1836 times heavier than an electron. The method is named after Max Born and Robert Oppenheimer[1], who proposed it in 1927.

Rationale

The computation of the energy and wave function of an average-size molecule is a formidable task that is alleviated by the Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation.The BO approximation makes it possible to compute the wave function in two less formidable, consecutive, steps. This approximation was proposed in the early days of quantum mechanics by Born and Oppenheimer (1927) and is indispensable in quantum chemistry and ubiquitous in large parts of computational physics.

In the first step of the BO approximation the electronic Schrödinger equation is solved, yielding a wave function depending on electrons only. For benzene this wave function depends on 126 electronic coordinates. During this solution the nuclei are fixed in a certain configuration, very often the equilibrium configuration. If the effects of the quantum mechanical nuclear motion are to be studied, for instance because a vibrational spectrum is required, this electronic computation must be repeated for many different nuclear configurations. The set of electronic energies thus computed becomes a function of the nuclear coordinates. In the second step of the BO approximation this function serves as a potential in a Schrödinger equation containing only the nuclei—for benzene an equation in 36 variables.

The success of the BO approximation is due to the high ratio between nuclear and electronic masses. The approximation is an important tool of quantum chemistry, without it only the lightest molecule, H2, could be handled; all computations of molecular wave functions for larger molecules make use of it. Even in the cases where the BO approximation breaks down, it is used as a point of departure for the computations.

Historical note

The Born-Oppenheimer approximation is named after M. Born and R. Oppenheimer who wrote a paper [Annalen der Physik, vol. 84, pp. 457-484 (1927)] entitled: Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln (On the Quantum Theory of Molecules). This paper describes the separation of electronic motion, nuclear vibrations, and molecular rotation. A reader of this paper who expects to find clearly delineated the BO approximation—as it is explained above and in most modern textbooks—will be disappointed. The presentation of the BO approximation is well hidden in Taylor expansions (in terms of internal and external nuclear coordinates) of (i) electronic wave functions, (ii) potential energy surfaces and (iii) nuclear kinetic energy terms. Internal coordinates are the relative positions of the nuclei in the molecular equilibrium and their displacements (vibrations) from equilibrium. External coordinates are the position of the center of mass and the orientation of the molecule. The Taylor expansions complicate the theory tremendously and make the derivations very hard to follow. Moreover, knowing that the proper separation of vibrations and rotations was not achieved in this work, but only eight years later [by C. Eckart, Physical Review, vol. 46, pp. 383-387 (1935)] (see Eckart conditions), chemists and molecular physicists are not very much motivated to invest much effort into understanding the work by Born and Oppenheimer, however famous it may be. Although the article still collects many citations each year, it is safe to say that it is not read anymore, except maybe by historians of science.

Footnotes

  1. Wikipedia has an article about Robert Oppenheimer.