I was following along Mark Thomson's Modern Particle Physics, and got stuck on this book's derivation of Fermi's Golden Rule (On page 53):

"... If there are d$n$ accessible final states in the energy range $E_f \rightarrow E_f +dE_f$, then the total transition rate $\Gamma_{fi}$ is given by \begin{equation} \Gamma_{fi} = 2\pi \int|T_{fi}|^2 \frac{dn}{dE_f} \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \frac{1}{T} \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{-\frac{T}{2}} e^{i(E_f - E_i)t} \delta(E_f-E_i) dt \right\}dE_f \tag{A}. \end{equation} The delta-function in the integral implies that $E_f=E_i$ and therefore $(\text{A})$ can be written \begin{equation} \Gamma_{fi} = 2\pi \int|T_{fi}|^2 \frac{dn}{dE_f} \delta(E_f-E_i) \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \frac{1}{T} \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{-\frac{T}{2}} dt \right\}dE_f \tag{B}. \end{equation} ... (and so on) "

Based on the explanation between the steps, I don't understand why $E_f$ and $E_i$ should be the same. I do know that in order for $E_f$ to be the same as $E_i$, the Dirac-delta functions supposed to be integrated with the exponent, but this is not the case. Any explanation for this would be appreciated.

  • $\begingroup$ Are you asking why $E_f$ is set equal to $E_i$ in the $t$-integral, despite it not being integrated over? $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '20 at 9:53
  • $\begingroup$ @NiharKarve yes, that's what am i wondering $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '20 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ FWIW, the Fermi Golden rule is derived in my Phys.SE answer here. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Dec 1 '20 at 10:29

This is just an application of the rule \begin{align} \int dx\;f(x)g(x) \delta(x-y) = f(y)g(y) &= f(y)\int dx\; g(x)\delta(x-y)\\ &= \int dx\; f(y)g(x) \delta(x-y) \end{align} where we have used the definition of the delta function. Intuitively the Dirac delta is zero except where its argument vanishes, so the value $f$ only matters at that point, so we can make the substitution and get the same answer.

Here $f$ is the seemingly complicated function $$ f(E_f) = \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt \;e^{\imath (E_f-E_i) t} $$ and $$ g(E_f) = |T_{if}|^2 \frac{d n}{dE_f} $$

  • $\begingroup$ Just wanna make sure, do you mean $f(E_f)$, $g(E_f)$, and $E_f-E_i$ on the exponent part in $f(E)$? $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '20 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Andrijauhari yes. I will edit to be clearer $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '20 at 12:13

I think this can be quickly resolved with a reference to the wikipedia page on the dirac delta:

Approach 1) as T goes to infinity, the integral becomes delta of the energy difference, so there may be a square of dirac deltas which is the same as a dirac delta. However, I'm not sure why the division by T can be absorbed in the dirac delta... As commented below, this is physically unreasonable.

Approach 2): The answer is easier than possibility 1 - the definition of the Dirac delta means that the argument, here $E_i-E_f$, is zero. This is used to set the argument of the exponential to zero.

Approach 2 seems to be what was used here. Reviewing the wikipedia page on the Dirac delta might help you get a handle on why it is this way.

  • $\begingroup$ The square of deltas is ill-defined. But it could be that the first delta should not be there and then comes in as a consequence of the math as you explained. $\endgroup$
    – Cream
    Dec 1 '20 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ While I agree that the square of deltas is ill-defined, I think that most physicists would just square the definition involving infinity if the argument is 0 and 0 otherwise by squaring the components in this piecewise-defined definition. In that case, there is a good chance that the author (as a member of "most physicists") would use that the square of a dirac delta is the same dirac delta. As such, I made such an assumption in my answer. $\endgroup$
    – PrawwarP
    Dec 1 '20 at 10:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I know that Physicists always like to be mathematically sloppy (after all, I am one myself), but this is not one such case. A squared dirac delta almost certainly means that there has been an error in the computation as it would imply a physically infinite result. Written in physics style: $\int dx \delta(x) \delta(x) = \delta(0) = \infty$. $\endgroup$
    – Cream
    Dec 1 '20 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I never thought of the square like that. $\endgroup$
    – PrawwarP
    Dec 1 '20 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ @PrawwarP Thank you so much, Approach 2 is what I'm trying to convince to myself. I'd love to vote your answer, but I'm still new here, so I can't. $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '20 at 12:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.