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.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
723
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K