 conductor between the antenna complex and the reaction center. The FMO protein is a trimer where the three identical subunits consist of seven chromophoric sites which are fully characterized [@BioCh2005]. Typical transport times for excitons through FMO are of the order of picoseconds. Recent experiments [@BioEn2007] on the FMO complex show that the exciton transport exhibits quantum coherent oscillations up to $660$ femtoseconds. This raises the important question why the strong environmental fluctuations are insufficient to fully decohere the quantum transport. Simplifying the problem to a donor-acceptor model level it was shown [@BioTh2008; @Flemming2] that the slowness of the environment, namely $\omega_c\simeq\Delta$, sufficiently slows down decoherence for quantum oscillations to survive even for strong coupling to the environment.

Having understood why quantum coherence survives rather strong couplings to environmental fluctuations raises the subsequent question whether photosynthesis benefits from quantum coherence either to improve efficiency or to allow regulation. Detailed descriptions of transport through FMO, however, requires to go beyond a donor-acceptor model rendering the problem much more complicated. Therefore allmost all approaches to study this question rely on weak coupling approximations [@Mohseni08; @Olaya1; @Olaya2; @Caruso09; @Rebentrost09; @Sarovar09; @Flemming1]. Ishizaki and Fleming [@Flemming2; @Fleming3] use a reduced hierarchy approach which they match for weak coupling to results from a Redfield approach and for strong coupling to results from Förster transfer description. The actual parameter range of interest is in between. We show in the present paper that even at weak coupling perturbative weak coupling approaches (like Redfield) break down and fail to describe the dynamics.

We shortly review the Hamiltonian for a single chromophore in the next section \[sec2\] before we once more introduce a donor-acceptor model in order to discuss the validity of perturbative approaches by comparing a lowest order perturbative approach with a numerical exact treatment. Using a resumed perturbative approach (RESPET) [@RESPET1; @RESPET2; @RESPET3; @RESPET4; @RESPET5] we analytically derive in section \[sec3\] the time evolution of the population difference in our donor-acceptor model in lowest order in the system environment coupling. Thereby all non-Markovian
conductor between the antenna complex and the reaction center. The FMO protein is a trimer where the three identical subunits dwell of seven chromophoric web site which are fully characterized   [ @BioCh2005 ]. distinctive transport clock time for excitons through FMO are of the order of picoseconds. late experiment   [ @BioEn2007 ] on the FMO complex show that the exciton transport exhibits quantum coherent cycle up to $ 660 $ femtoseconds. This raises the authoritative question why the strong environmental fluctuations are insufficient to fully decohere the quantum transport. simplify the problem to a donor - acceptor model level it was prove   [ @BioTh2008; @Flemming2 ] that the slowness of the environment, namely $ \omega_c\simeq\Delta$, sufficiently slows down decoherence for quantum oscillation to survive even for potent coupling to the environment. 

 Having understood why quantum coherence survives rather strong coupling to environmental fluctuations raises the subsequent question whether photosynthesis benefits from quantum coherence either to improve efficiency or to allow regulation. Detailed descriptions of transport through FMO, however, requires to go beyond a donor - acceptor model rendering the problem much more complicated. Therefore allmost all approaches to analyze this question rely on fallible yoke approximations   [ @Mohseni08; @Olaya1; @Olaya2; @Caruso09; @Rebentrost09; @Sarovar09; @Flemming1 ]. Ishizaki and Fleming [ @Flemming2; @Fleming3 ] use a reduced hierarchy approach which they match for weak coupling to results from a Redfield overture and for strong coupling to results from Förster transfer description. The actual parameter range of pastime is in between. We show in the present paper that even at weak coupling perturbative unaccented yoke approach (like Redfield) break down and fail to describe the dynamics. 

 We concisely review the Hamiltonian for a single chromophore in the next section   \[sec2\ ] before we once more insert a donor - acceptor model in order to discuss the validity of perturbative approach path by comparing a lowest order perturbative approach with a numerical accurate treatment. Using a resumed perturbative approach (RESPET)   [ @RESPET1; @RESPET2; @RESPET3; @RESPET4; @RESPET5 ] we analytically deduce in section   \[sec3\ ] the time evolution of the population remainder in our donor - acceptor mannequin in lowest order in the system environment coupling. Thereby all non - Markovian
 cojductor between the antekna complex and jhw reacvion cehter. The FMO protein is a trimer whece tye theee identical subunits consist lf seven chrinophoric smfes whigk are nully rharacterized [@BipCh2005]. Typican transport tiker yor excitons through FMO are of the jrder og oicoseconds. Resent qxpedpmtnts [@BioEn2007] on the FMO complex show that tie exciton tranxport exhibits quantum cohfrenh oscillations up ho $660$ femtosexondf. This raises the imporuaut question why the strong environmental fuuctuctions are unwufvhcient to fnlly dvcohere the qmsntum dranspott. Simplifying thx priblem to a donor-accepvor model level it wws shown [@BhoCh2008; @Flemming2] that the wliwnesv of the wnvkrohmxnt, namelj $\ojega_c\simeq\Selta$, suffixiently slows down cesiherence for suantui jscillations to survive even for strong cohpling to the environmebt.

Having understood wjy quantui coherence survives rather strong couplings to etviroimdntco fluzruwtions raises the subsequent question whether lhptpsynthesis bencfits from quantum clhrtence either tu improve efficiency or to wllow rggulatuon. Detaijed cescriptions of transport tyrough FMO, hjqever, requires to yo beyond a bonor-avceptpr model rendering the 'roblej much more complicafdd. Therefore alloosn aln approaches to study this question relv on weay coopling wpproximatlons [@Mohseni08; @Olaya1; @Olaya2; @Farusl09; @Sebentrost09; @Sarovar09; @Flemming1]. Ishizaki and Hkeming [@Flemmonc2; @Fneming3] ufe a veduced hierarcry approach whnch they matcf for weak coupliig to resultf from a Redfhgld approach end for seront coypling gu results from Förster tgausfer desxription. The actuak pxdameter range oy unterest is in netdeeg. Ae srmw in the praseng pxler tfat even at deak coupling perturbatiee wsak coupling approscmes (like Tedfield) freak down anc fail to describe the vynamirs.

We snorjly review the Hamiltonian for z single fhrjmophore in ehe kext section \[see2\] before we once more introduce a donor-arceptor model in order ro discuss the valibiuy of perturbetive wpproachev by comparing a lowwst order perturbstive approach with a numerhcal fxact treatment. Using a resumed perturbative approach (RESPET) [@RESPET1; @RESPET2; @RESPEV3; @WESPET4; @RESPST5] wr ananycicclly dewive mn section \[sec3\] the time evolution of the populatiun diffeseuce in our donor-acceptor modek kn lowest ordgr in the system environmeht couplong. Thereby all non-Markovian
conductor between the antenna complex and the The protein is trimer where the seven sites which are characterized [@BioCh2005]. Typical times for excitons through FMO are the order of picoseconds. Recent experiments [@BioEn2007] on the FMO complex show that exciton transport exhibits quantum coherent oscillations up to $660$ femtoseconds. This raises the question the environmental are insufficient to fully decohere the quantum transport. Simplifying the problem to a donor-acceptor model level was shown [@BioTh2008; @Flemming2] that the slowness of environment, namely $\omega_c\simeq\Delta$, sufficiently down decoherence for quantum oscillations survive for strong to environment. understood why quantum survives rather strong couplings to environmental fluctuations raises the subsequent question whether photosynthesis benefits from quantum coherence to improve to allow Detailed of through FMO, however, go beyond a donor-acceptor model rendering more complicated. Therefore allmost all approaches to study question rely weak coupling approximations [@Mohseni08; @Olaya1; @Olaya2; @Rebentrost09; @Sarovar09; @Flemming1]. Ishizaki and Fleming [@Flemming2; @Fleming3] a reduced hierarchy approach which they match for weak coupling to results from a Redfield for strong coupling to from Förster transfer The parameter of is in We show in the present paper that even at weak coupling weak coupling approaches (like Redfield) break down and fail to dynamics. shortly review the for a single chromophore the section \[sec2\] before we introduce donor-acceptor to the of perturbative approaches by a lowest order perturbative approach a numerical exact treatment. (RESPET) [@RESPET1; @RESPET2; @RESPET3; @RESPET4; @RESPET5] we analytically in section \[sec3\] the time evolution of population difference in our donor-acceptor model in lowest order in the system coupling. Thereby
 conductor between the antennA complex anD the rEacTioN cEnteR. The fMO protein is a tRImer Where the three identical SubunItS ConsISt Of sevEn chromOPhORIc sItEs WhiCh ARe Fully ChaRacteriZed [@BioCh2005]. TyPicAl Transport timES fOr excitons ThrOugh FMO are of The Order oF pIcoSEcondS. ReCent eXperimENts [@Bioen2007] on the FMo cOMplex sHOw that tHE ExCitoN transport exhibitS QuANtum coherent osCillatIoNS uP TO $660$ feMtoSeconds. ThiS rAises THe imporTAnT QUEstIOn why the stronG environmenTAl fLuctuaTiOns ARe insuFficiEnT To fUlly decoherE the Quantum trAnsporT. simplifYIng the pRoblem To a DonOr-acCEpToR moDeL LevEL iT waS ShoWn [@BioTh2008; @FLeMmIng2] thAt thE SLOWnesS of The eNviroNment, namely $\omEga_C\simEQ\DeLta$, suFficiEntlY sLows dOwn decOhereNcE for quantum osciLlatIons to surVivE eVen FoR stroNG couplIng To tHe envirOnment.

HAVinG uNDERsTood why quantum coheReNCE sUrvives rAther sTRoNg COuplings To EnvIronMENtal fLuctUAtIons raisEs the sUBsEqUent queStIon wheThEr pHotOsyntHEsis BenefiTs from quAntum COherence either TO improve efficIEnCY Or TO allOw rEgulation. DeTailED desCripTIoNs oF TransPort tHrOUgH fMO, however, requires tO gO beyonD a donOr-acceptor modEl renderinG THE problem Much MOrE Complicated. TheReforE allmost alL ApproachEs to sTudy this Question rELY on weak cOupLinG apProXIMaTions [@Mohseni08; @OLAYa1; @OlAyA2; @Caruso09; @rebEntrost09; @sarOvaR09; @FlEmmInG1]. Ishizaki And FlemiNg [@flEmMiNg2; @FLeminG3] Use a reduCeD hiErArcHy appROach whIch thEy maTcH fOR weAk couplINg TO ResuLtS fRom a redFiEld apProaCH anD for strOng coupliNg tO ResuLtS fRom FörsTer transfer deScRiption. The AcTuaL paramETEr range oF interest is in between. We sHOw in the PreSent pAper That even aT weAk coupLinG PerturBative Weak cOuPliNG ApproACHeS (liKe redfield) brEAK doWn and FaIl to DescribE the dynamics.

We shorTLy rEview the HamilTonIan fOR A sIngLE cHRomOpHOre IN The next section \[sEc2\] before we OnCE mOre introduCE a dOnOr-accepTor modeL in orDEr to disCuss the vaLidity of pErTurbATIve Approaches By comparIng a lowesT Order PErTurbaTivE approAcH wiTh a nuMericaL ExaCt treAtment. usIng a reSumed PeRturbatiVe approach (RESPET) [@RESPET1; @ReSPET2; @ReSPET3; @rESpET4; @RESPET5] We aNAlyTically deRive In section \[sEc3\] tHe tIme evOluTIon of The pOPuLatIOn difFereNCe in our doNOr-AccEPToR model in lowEST OrdEr in tHe sYStem enViroNment coupling. TherEBy all non-MarkovIan
 conductor between the ant enna compl ex an d t here acti on c enter. The FMO prot ein is a trimer wherethe t hr e e id e nt icalsubunit s  c o n sis tof  se ve n  c hromo pho ric sit es which a refu lly characte r iz ed [@BioCh 200 5]. Typicaltra nsport  t ime s  forexc itons  throu g h FMOare of th eo rder o f  picose c o nd s. R ecent experiments [@ B ioEn2007] on t he FMO  c o mp l e x s how  that theex citon transpo r te x h ibi t s quantum coh erent oscil l ati ons up  t o $ 6 60$ fe mtose co n ds.  This raise s th e importa nt que s tion wh y  the st rong e nvi ron ment a lfl uct ua t ion s  a rei nsu fficient  t ofully  dec o h e r e th e q uant um tr ansport. Simp lif ying the  prob lem t o ado nor-a ccepto r mod el  level it was s hown  [@BioTh2 008 ;@Fl em ming2 ]  thatthe  sl ownessof thee nvi ro n m e nt , namely $\omega_c \s i m eq \Delta$,  suffi c ie nt l y slowsdo wndeco h e rence  for qu antum os cillat i on sto surv iv e even  f orstr ong c o upli ng tothe envi ronme n t.

Having und e rstood why qu a nt u m  c o here nce  survives r athe r  str ongc ou pli n gs to  envi ro n me n tal fluctuations ra is es the  subs equent questi on whether p h otosynth esis be n efits from qua ntumcoherencee ither to  impr ove effi ciency or t o allowreg ula tio n.D e ta iled descript i o ns o ftranspo rtthrough  FM O,how eve r,  requires  to go b ey on dadon or-ac c eptor mo de l r en der ing t h e prob lem m uchmo re com plicate d .T h eref or eallm ost  a ll ap proa c hes  to stu dy this q ues t ionre ly  on wea k coupling ap pr oximations  [ @Mo hseni0 8 ;  @Olaya1 ; @Olaya2; @Caruso09; @ R ebentro st0 9; @S arov ar09; @Fl emm ing1].  Is h izakiand Fl eming  [ @Fl e m ming2 ; @F lem in g3] use ar e duc ed hi er arch y appro ach which they mat c h f or weak coupl ing  tor e su lts fr o m a  R e dfi e l d approach andfor strong  c o up ling to re s ult sfrom Fö rster t ransf e r descr iption. T he actual  p aram e t errange of i nterestis in bet w een.W eshowinthe pr es ent  pape r that eve n atweak c ou plingpertu rb ative we ak coupling approaches(likeRedfi eld ) break d own and  fail todesc ribe the d yna mic s.

W e s h ortly  rev i ew  th e  Hami lton i an for as in gle c hr omophore in t h e n ext s ect i on \[s ec2\ ] before we oncem ore introducea do n o r-a cce p tormo del in order t o d is c u ss the v al idity of pe rturbati ve appro achesby com paringa lo w est or derper turbative  ap pr o ach wit han umeric al e xa ct tre atment .  Usi n g  a resumed pertu rbati v e  appr o ach  (RES PE T) [@RE S PET1 ; @RESPET2 ; @RESPET3;  @RESP ET4;  @RES PET5] w eanalyt ica ll y derive i n  section\[sec 3\] the  t imeevo lution  oft h e pop ulat io n d ifference i no ur  d o nor -acc eptor  m odel  in lowes t  order i n t h e syste menv i r onment co u p ling. Ther eby  alln o n-Markovia n 
 conductor_between the_antenna complex and the_reaction center._The_FMO protein_is_a trimer where_the three identical_subunits consist of seven_chromophoric sites which_are_fully characterized [@BioCh2005]. Typical transport times for excitons through FMO are of the order of_picoseconds._Recent experiments [@BioEn2007]_on_the_FMO complex show that the_exciton transport exhibits quantum coherent_oscillations up_to $660$ femtoseconds. This raises the important question_why_the strong environmental_fluctuations are insufficient to fully decohere the quantum transport._Simplifying the problem to a donor-acceptor_model level it_was_shown [@BioTh2008;_@Flemming2] that the slowness_of the environment, namely $\omega_c\simeq\Delta$, sufficiently_slows down decoherence for quantum oscillations_to survive even for strong coupling to_the environment.

Having understood why quantum coherence_survives rather strong couplings to_environmental fluctuations_raises the subsequent question whether_photosynthesis benefits from_quantum coherence_either to improve_efficiency or to allow regulation. Detailed_descriptions of transport_through FMO, however, requires to go_beyond_a donor-acceptor model_rendering_the_problem much_more complicated. Therefore_allmost_all approaches_to_study this question rely on weak_coupling_approximations [@Mohseni08; @Olaya1; @Olaya2; @Caruso09; @Rebentrost09; @Sarovar09; @Flemming1]._Ishizaki and Fleming [@Flemming2;_@Fleming3]_use a reduced hierarchy_approach which they match for_weak coupling to results from a_Redfield approach_and for_strong coupling to results from Förster transfer description. The actual parameter_range of interest is in between._We show in the_present paper_that_even at weak_coupling_perturbative weak_coupling approaches (like Redfield) break down and_fail to_describe the dynamics.

We shortly review the_Hamiltonian for a single_chromophore_in the next section \[sec2\] before we_once more introduce a donor-acceptor model_in order to discuss the_validity_of_perturbative approaches by comparing a_lowest order perturbative approach with a_numerical exact treatment._Using a resumed perturbative approach (RESPET) [@RESPET1; @RESPET2;_@RESPET3;_@RESPET4; @RESPET5] we analytically derive in_section \[sec3\]_the time evolution of the population_difference_in_our donor-acceptor model in lowest_order in the system environment coupling._Thereby all non-Markovian