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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Fermi's Golden Rule in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) for calculating scattering cross sections. The user expresses confusion regarding the appearance of factors of ##2E## in differential cross sections, particularly in the context of the differential transition rate formula. It is established that these factors arise from the normalization of states and Lorentz-invariant measures, impacting the calculations of the matrix element ##|M_{if}|^2##. The user seeks clarification on modifying the formula for ##d\Gamma_{if}## to incorporate these factors correctly.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermi's Golden Rule in Quantum Field Theory
  • Familiarity with scattering cross sections and differential rates
  • Knowledge of Lorentz-invariant measures in particle physics
  • Concept of four-momentum states and their normalization
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Fermi's Golden Rule in detail
  • Learn about the normalization of states in Quantum Field Theory
  • Research the implications of Lorentz invariance on scattering processes
  • Examine different conventions used in matrix element calculations across various texts
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers focusing on Quantum Field Theory and scattering processes will benefit from this discussion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
979
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K