I Fermi's golden rule: why delta function instead of density states?

yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
See bolded text!
Sakurai, in ##\S## 5.7.3 Constant Perturbation mentions that the transition rate can be written in both ways:

$$w_{i \to [n]} = \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar} |V_{ni}|^2 \rho(E_n)$$
and
$$w_{i \to n} = \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar} |V_{ni}|^2 \delta(E_n - E_i)$$
where it must be understood that this expression is integrated with ##\int dE_n \rho(E_n)##

My question is, what is the advantage of the delta function representation? Which one is actually measured/quoted in experiments?

My guess: we know how to calculate ##|V_{ni}|##, but we need not know ##\rho(E_n)##! Hence it is more convenient to just quote the expression with the delta function.

P.S. does anyone have useful references/reading material of when Fermi's Golden Rule is useful, in experiments, how the transition rates determined experimentally are related to FGR?

Thanks in advance!

(To be frank, I believe all of the confusion regarding FGR is due to the fact it's introduced out of context, i.e. from where it is applied...)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a bit unclear stated, what's meant by the 2nd expression. It's the (average) transition-probability rate for the transition from an asymptotic free energy-eigen-in-state to an asymptotic free energy-eigen-out state. If either state is a scattering state, i.e., in the continuous part of the Hamiltonian's spectrum, the corresponding "eigen state" is a generalized function (distribution) rather than a true square-integrable state, and thus the system cannot be really in such an energy eigenstate. In scattering theory you have to take always asymptotic free "wave-packet states" to get finite results for cross sections and then take the limit to exact (generalized) energy eigen states. For a careful treatment of this somewhat delicate issue, see

M. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum
Field Theory, Addison-Wesley Publ. Comp., Reading,
Massachusetts (1995).

Although there it's discussed for relativistic QFT, the same arguments hold true in non-relativistic QM scattering theory.
 
yucheng said:
My question is, what is the advantage of the delta function representation? Which one is actually measured/quoted in experiments?
Integrating the delta function representation over any finite energy interval gives (by definition of the delta function!) the exact number of states in that interval. But instead of using this ragged function it is much more practical to use the smoothly varying average density of states. It is proportional to ## {\mathbf k}^2 ## or, in the case of photons, to ## \nu^2 ##, and accounts for the fact that transition rates tend to grow quickly with increasing energy.
yucheng said:
My guess: we know how to calculate ##|V_{ni}|##, but we need not know ##\rho(E_n)##! Hence it is more convenient to just quote the expression with the delta function.
No. The density of states is just as important as the squared modulus of the transition matrix element. Fermi's golden rule wouldn't make sense, be dimensionally incorrect without it!
yucheng said:
P.S. does anyone have useful references/reading material of when Fermi's Golden Rule is useful, in experiments, how the transition rates determined experimentally are related to FGR?
The discussion I like best is in chapter 12 (Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory) in Gordon Baym's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1969). It's worth studying carefully. It is especially noteworthy that the transition probability, which at first sight would appear to be proportional to ## t^2 ## (square of the matrix element in first order perturbation theory) ends up proportional to ## t ##, as appropriate for a transition rate. The growth is diminished because the distribution over final states becomes ever narrower with time, the spread being proportional to ## t^{-1} ##.
yucheng said:
(To be frank, I believe all of the confusion regarding FGR is due to the fact it's introduced out of context, i.e. from where it is applied...)
I don't understand what "confusion" you are referring to. For me the usefulness of Fermi's golden rule is beyond doubt. The tricky part is its derivation, because it is an amalgamation of Schrödinger's time-dependent equation with the Born rule. Some people think that application of the Born rule is related to "measurement" and must be strictly separated from unitary evolution according to Schrödinger's equation, but I think they are closely intertwined and cannot be separated.
 
It's just time-dependent first-order perturbation theory. The devil is in the detail, how to deal with distributions! The treatment in Baym's book is, of course, very clear.
 
vanhees71 said:
The devil is in the detail, how to deal with distributions!
I don't have any qualms with distributions. As a physicist, I even find them quite intuitive. :smile:
vanhees71 said:
It's just time-dependent first-order perturbation theory.
It's a bit more than that, because it is not merely computing a first order correction to a matrix element. Fermi's golden rule is an expression for an observable quantity, a transition rate, and cannot be derived without using the Born rule.
 
Of course not. I don't know, why one should avoid Born's rule at all. It's the only "interpretation" of the quantum formalism needed to make contact with observable phenomena.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...

Similar threads

Back
Top