Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js
Skip to main content
Library homepage
 

Text Color

Text Size

 

Margin Size

 

Font Type

Enable Dyslexic Font
Physics LibreTexts

6.6: Quantum-mechanical Golden Rule

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

One of the results of the past section, Eq. (102), may be used to derive one of the most important and nontrivial results of quantum mechanics. For that, let us consider the case when the perturbation causes quantum transitions from a discrete energy level En, into a group of eigenstates with a very dense (essentially continuous) spectrum En see Fig. 10a.

Screen Shot 2022-01-24 at 8.51.03 PM.pngFig. 6.10. Deriving the Golden Rule: (a) the energy level scheme, and (b) the function under the integral (108).

If, for all states n of the group, the following conditions are satisfied |Ann|2<<(Δnn)2<<(ωnn)2, then Eq. (102) coincides with the result that would follow from Eq. (90). This means that we may apply Eq. (102), with the indices n and n ’ duly restored, to any level n of our tight group. As a result, the total probability of having our system transferred from the initial level n ’ to that group is WΣ(t)=nWn(t)=42n|Ann|2Δ2nnsin2Δnnt2. Now comes the main, absolutely beautiful trick: let us assume that the summation over n is limited to a tight group of very similar states whose matrix elements Ann ’ are virtually similar (we will check the validity of this assumption later on), so that we can take |Ann|2 out of the sum in Eq. (107) and then replace the sum with the corresponding integral:

WΣ(t)=4|Ann|221Δ2nnsin2Δnnt2dn4|Ann|2ρnt1(Δnnt)2sin2Δnnt2d(Δnnt), where ρn is the density of the states n on the energy axis: ρndndEn. This density and the matrix element Ann, have to be evaluated at Δnn=0, i.e. at energy En=En+ω, and are assumed to be constant within the final state group. At fixed En, the function under integral (108) is even and decreases fast at |Δnnt|>>1 see Fig. 10b. Hence we may introduce a dimensionless integration variable ξΔnnt, and extend the integration over it formally from to +. Then the integral in Eq. (108) is reduced to a table one, 36 and yields WΣ(t)=4|Ann|2ρnt+11ξ2sin2ξ2dξ=4|Ann|2ρntπ2Γt, where the constant Γ=2π|Ann|2ρn is called the transition rate. 37 This is one of the most famous and useful results of quantum mechanics, its Golden Rule 38, which deserves much discussion.

First of all, let us reproduce the reasoning already used in Sec. 2.5 to show that the meaning of the rate Γ is much deeper than Eq. (110) seems to imply. Indeed, due to the conservation of the total probability, Wn+WΣ=1, we can rewrite that equation as ˙Wn|t=0=Γ Evidently, this result cannot be true for all times, otherwise the probability Wn, would become negative. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that Eq. (110) was obtained in the assumption that initially, the system was completely on level n:Wn(0)=1. Now, if at the initial moment the value of Wn, is different, the result (110) has to be multiplied by that number, due to the linear relation (88) between dan/dt and an. Hence, instead of Eq. (112) we get a differential equation similar to Eq. (2.159), ˙Wn|t0=ΓWn, which, for a time-independent Γ, has the evident solution, Wn(t)=Wn(0)eΓt, describing the exponential decay of the initial state’s occupancy, with the time constant τ=1/Γ.

I am inviting the reader to review this fascinating result again: by the summation of periodic oscillations (102) over many levels n, we have got an exponential decay (114) of the probability. This trick becomes possible because the effective range ΔEn of the state energies En giving substantial contributions to the integral (108), shrinks with time: ΔEn/t.39 However, since most of the decay (114) takes place within the time interval of the order of τ1/Γ, the range of the participating final energies may be estimated as ΔEnτΓ. This estimate is very instrumental for the formulation of conditions of the Golden Rule’s validity. First, we have assumed that the matrix elements of the perturbation and the density of states are independent of the energy within the interval (115). This gives the following requirement ΔEnΓ<<EnEnω, Second, for the transfer from the sum (107) to the integral (108), we need the number of states within that energy interval, ΔNn=ρnΔEn, to be much larger than 1. Merging Eq. (116) with Eq. (92) for all the energy levels nn,n not participating in the resonant transition, we may summarize all conditions of the Golden Rule validity as ρ1n<<Γ<|ω±ωnn| (The reader may ask whether I have neglected the condition expressed by the first of Eqs. (106). However, for ΔnnΔEn/Γ, this condition is just |Ann|2<<(Γ)2, so that plugging it into Eq. (111), Γ<<2π(Γ)2ρn, and canceling one Γ and one , we see that it coincides with the first relation in Eq. (117) above.)

Let us have a look at whether these conditions may be satisfied in practice, at least in some cases. For example, let us consider the optical ionization of an atom, with the released electron confined in a volume of the order of 1 cm3106 m3. According to Eq. (1.90), with E of the order of the atomic ionization energy EnEn=ω1eV, the density of electron states in that volume is of the order of 10211/eV, while the right-hand side of Eq. (117) is of the order of En1eV. Thus the conditions (117) provide an approximately 20 -orders-of magnitude range for acceptable values of Γ. This illustration should give the reader a taste of why the Golden Rule is applicable to so many situations.

Finally, the physical picture of the initial state’s decay (which will also be the key to our discussion of quantum-mechanical "open" systems in the next chapter) is also very important. According to Eq. (114), the external excitation transfers the system into the continuous spectrum of levels n, and it never comes back to the initial level n ’. However, it was derived from the quantum mechanics of Hamiltonian systems, whose equations are invariant with respect to time reversal. This paradox is a result of our generalization (113) of the exact result (112) This trick, breaking the timereversal symmetry, is absolutely adequate for the physics under study. Indeed, some gut feeling of the physical sense of this irreversibility may be obtained from the following observation. As Eq. (1.86) illustrates, the distance between the adjacent orbital energy levels tends to zero only if the system’s size goes to infinity. This means that our assumption of the continuous energy spectrum of the finial states n essentially requires these states to be broadly extended in space - being either free, or essentially free de Broglie waves. Thus the Golden Rule corresponds to the (physically justified) assumption that in an infinitely large system, the traveling de Broglie waves excited by a local source and propagating outward from it, would never come back, and even if they did, unpredictable phase shifts introduced by minor uncontrollable perturbations on their way would never allow them to sum up in the coherent way necessary to bring the system back into the initial state n ’. (This is essentially the same situation which was discussed, for a particular 1D wave-mechanical system, in Sec. 2.5.) 440

To get a feeling of the Golden Rule at work, let us apply it to the following simple problem which is a toy model of the photoelectric effect, briefly discussed in Sec. 1.1(ii). A 1D particle is initially trapped in the ground state of a narrow potential well, described by Eq. (2.158): U(x)=Wδ(x), with w>0. Let us calculate the rate Γ of the particle’s "ionization" (i.e. its excitation into a group of extended, delocalized states) by a weak classical sinusoidal force of amplitude F0 and frequency ω, suddenly turned on at some instant, say t=0.

As a reminder, the initial localized state (in our current notation, n ’) of such a particle was already found in Sec. 2.6: ψn(x)=κ1/2exp{κ|x|}, with κmw2,En2κ22m=mw222. The final, extended states n, with a continuous spectrum, for this problem exist only at energies En>0, so that the excitation rate is different from zero only for frequencies ω>ωmin|En|=mw223. The weak sinusoidal force may be described by the following perturbation Hamiltonian, ˆH(1)=F(t)ˆx=F0ˆxcosωtF02ˆx(eiωt+eiωt), for t>0, so that according to Eq. (86), which serves as the amplitude operator’s definition, in this case ˆA=ˆA=F02ˆx. The matrix elements Ann, that participate in Eq. (111) may be readily calculated in the coordinate representation:

Ann=+ψn(x)ˆA(x)ψn(x)dx=F02+ψn(x)xψn(x)dx. Since, according to Eq. (120), the initial ψn ’ is a symmetric function of x, non-vanishing contributions to this integral are given only by antisymmetric functions ψn(x), proportional to sinknx, with the wave number kn related to the final energy by the well-familiar equality (1.89): 2k2n2m=En. As we know from Sec. 2.6 (see in particular Eq. (2.167) and its discussion), such antisymmetric functions, with ψn(0)=0, are not affected by the zero-centered delta-functional potential (119), so that their density ρn is the same as that in completely free space, and we could use Eq. (1.100). However, since that relation was derived for traveling waves, it is more prudent to repeat its derivation for standing waves, confining them to an artificial segment [l/2,+l/2] long in the sense knl,κl>>1 so it does not affect the initial localized state and the excitation process. Then the confinement requirement ψn(±l/2)=0 immediately yields the condition knl/2=nπ, so that Eq. (1.100) is indeed valid, but only for positive values of kn, because sinknx with knkn does not describe an independent standing-wave eigenstate. Hence the final state density is ρndndEndndkn/dEndkn=l2π/2knmlm2π2kn. It may look troubling that the density of states depends on the artificial segment’s length l, but the same l also participates in the final wavefunctions’ normalization factor, 41 ψn=(2l)1/2sinknx and hence in the matrix element (124): Ann=F02(2κl)1/2+llsinknxeκ|x|xdx.=F02i(2κl)1/2(l0e(iknκ)xxdxl0e(ikn+κ)xxdx). These two integrals may be readily worked out by parts. Taking into account that due to the condition (126), their upper limits may be extended to , the result is Ann=(2κl)1/2F02knκ(k2n+κ2)2. Note that the matrix element is a smooth function of kn (and hence of En ), so that an important condition of the Golden Rule, the virtual constancy of Ann ’ on the interval ΔEnΓ<<En, is satisfied. So, the general Eq. (111) is reduced, for our problem, to the following expression:

Γ=2π[(2κl)1/2F02knκ(k2n+κ2)2]2lm2π2kn8F20mknκ33(k2n+κ2)4, which is independent of the artificially introduced l - thus justifying its use.

Note that due to the above definitions of kn and κ, the expression in the parentheses in the denominator of the last expression does not depend on the potential well’s "weight" w, and is a function of only the excitation frequency ω (and the particle’s mass): 2(k2n+κ2)2m=EnEn=ω As a result, Eq. (131) may be recast simply as Γ=F20w3kn2(ω)4. What is hidden here is that kn, defined by Eq. (125) with En=En+ω, is a function of the external force’s frequency, changing as ω1/2 at ω>>ωmin (so that Γ drops as ω7/2 at ω ), and as (ωωmin)1/2 when ω approaches the "red boundary" (121) of the ionization effect, so that Γ(ωωmin)1/20 in that limit as well.

A conceptually very similar, but a bit more involved analysis of such effect in a more realistic 3D case, namely the hydrogen atom’s ionization by an optical wave, is left for the reader’s exercise.


36 See, e.g., MA Eq. (6.12).

37 In some texts, the density of states in Eq. (111) is replaced with a formal expression δ(EnEnω). Indeed, applied to a finite energy interval ΔEn with Δn1 levels, it gives the same result: Δn(dn/dEn)ΔEnρnΔEn. Such replacement may be technically useful in some cases, but is incorrect for Δn1, and hence should be used with the utmost care, so that for most applications the more explicit form (111) is preferable.

38 Sometimes Eq. (111) is called "Fermi’s Golden Rule". This is rather unfair, because this result was developed mostly by the same P. A. M. Dirac in 1927, and Enrico Fermi’s role was not much more than advertising it, under the name of "Golden Rule No. 2", in his influential lecture notes on nuclear physics, which were published much later, in 1950. (To be fair to Fermi, he has never tried to pose as the Golden Rule’s author.)

39 This is one more appearance of the "energy-time uncertainty relation", which was discussed in Sec. 2.5.

40 This situation is also similar to the irreversible increase of entropy of macroscopic systems, despite the fact that their microscopic components obey reversible laws of motion, which is postulated in thermodynamics and explained in statistical physics - see, e.g., SM Secs. 1.2 and 2.2.

41 The normalization to infinite volume, using Eq. (4.263), is also possible, but physically less transparent.


This page titled 6.6: Quantum-mechanical Golden Rule is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Konstantin K. Likharev via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.

Support Center

How can we help?