I QFT - Confusion about Fermi's Golden Rule & Cross-Sections

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the confusion surrounding the application of Fermi's Golden Rule in quantum field theory (QFT), particularly regarding the calculation of scattering cross sections and the appearance of energy factors. The user highlights discrepancies in their results when calculating differential cross sections, noting unexpected factors of 2E in their outcomes. They seek clarification on whether these energy factors arise from state normalization in the matrix element M_if and how to adjust the differential transition rate formula accordingly. Additionally, there is a mention of varying units for the matrix element depending on the specific process being analyzed. Consistent conventions for amplitudes and their associated factors are crucial for accurate calculations in QFT.
tomdodd4598
Messages
137
Reaction score
13
Hey there! I've recently been looking at calculating amplitudes, densities of states and scattering cross sections in QFT, but am having a little bit of trouble with the exact form of the cross section - particularly with factors of ##2E## for the energies of the incoming and outgoing particles it seems.

When I first approached the topic, my understanding was that the differential transition rate from Fermi's golden rule is given by: $$d{ \Gamma }_{ if }=2\pi { \left| { M }_{ if } \right| }^{ 2 }{ \left( 2\pi \right) }^{ 4 }{ \delta }^{ \left( 4 \right) }\left( \sum { { k }_{ f } } -\sum { { k }_{ i } } \right) \prod { \frac { { d }^{ 3 }\vec { { k }_{ f } } }{ { \left( 2\pi \right) }^{ 3 } } }$$ However, if I use this as the basis for calculating various differential scattering cross sections ##\frac { d\sigma }{ d\Omega }##, for example scattering from a potential or 2→2 scattering, I ended up being a factor of ##2E## or ##16{ E }_{ i1 }{ E }_{ i2 }{ E }_{ f1 }{ E }_{ f2 }## out, respectively.

I recalled such factors appearing in places such as the Lorentz-invariant measure ##\frac { 1 }{ 2E } \frac { { d }^{ 3 }\vec { k } }{ { \left( 2\pi \right) }^{ 3 } }##, defining 'four-momentum states' ##\left| k \right> ={ \left( 2\pi \right) }^{ 3/2 }{ \left( 2E \right) }^{ 1/2 }\left| \vec { k } \right>##, so I thought that maybe these factors of ##2E## would appear in the calculations for ##M_{ if }## (due to the state normalisation), and would cancel with factors of ##2E## in some sort of Lorentz invariant form of the golden rule above.

I guess my question is whether this is indeed the case, and if so, how to modify the formula for ##d{ \Gamma }_{ if }## to account for the new factors in ##M_{ if }##. It doesn't seem to me that one can just stick factors of ##\frac { 1 }{ 2E }## into the phase space measure, as that would not give me the correct energies (such as for 2→2 scattering, for example), though I may be wrong. As a side query, it seems the units of the matrix element can vary depending on the process being studied - is this correct?

Thanks in advance for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to have a consistent set of conventions for the amplitude and the factors that ##|M_{if}|^2## is multiplied by. Different texts use different conventions.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...