First-Order Transition Amplitudes and Probabilities

When a weak, time-dependent perturbation acts on a quantum system prepared in an eigenstate of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, it can knock the system into a different eigenstate. First-order perturbation theory answers the leading-order question: what is the probability of that transition after a time t? This article evaluates the first-order amplitude explicitly and extracts the single formula that the entire theory of transitions — absorption, emission, decay, scattering — is built on. Starting from the interaction-picture coefficient equation that the previous article set up, we keep only the leading term: the system stays overwhelmingly in its initial state, and the perturbation acts once to leak amplitude into a final state f. For a perturbation whose matrix element V_fi is constant while it acts, the amplitude is a single time integral of a phase, and the transition probability comes out as the sharply-peaked function P_{i→f}(t) = (|V_fi|²/ħ²) · sin²(ω_fi t/2) / (ω_fi/2)², with ω_fi = (E_f − E_i)/ħ the Bohr frequency of the pair. This is the article's owned deliverable: a lineshape that is peaked at ω_fi = 0 (energy conservation), grows in height as t², and narrows in width as 1/t. The one structural result we prove here — and hand forward by name — is the limit that turns this lineshape into a rate. As t grows, sin²(ω_fi t/2)/(π t (ω_fi/2)²) sharpens into a Dirac delta δ(ω_fi), and the probability into the peak grows linearly in t. That is the seed of Fermi's golden rule: a discrete-to-continuum transition proceeds at a constant rate. We prove the delta limit (the area identity ∫ sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² dω = 2πt is exact); the golden-rule article multiplies it by the density of final states, and the harmonic-perturbation article shifts the peak to ω_fi = ±ω for absorption and emission. We do not derive those here — we set them up.

Key takeaways
  • To first order, the transition amplitude is one time integral of the interaction-picture matrix element: c_f^{(1)}(t) = −(i/ħ)∫₀ᵗ V_fi(t′) e^{iω_fi t′} dt′, with ω_fi = (E_f − E_i)/ħ.
  • For a constant V_fi, P_{i→f}(t) = (|V_fi|²/ħ²)·sin²(ω_fi t/2)/(ω_fi/2)² — the sinc² lineshape, peaked at ω_fi = 0.
  • The central peak (E_f = E_i) grows as t² and the width in ω shrinks as 2π/t: energy conservation ΔE·t ~ h sharpens as time passes but is fuzzy at short times.
  • The area under the lineshape is exact: ∫ sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² dω = 2πt, so sin²(ωt/2)/(2π t (ω/2)²) → δ(ω) — the transition probability into a band grows linearly in t.
  • That linear-in-t growth is a constant RATE — the seed handed to Fermi's golden rule, which multiplies this delta by the density of final states.
  • First-order theory is trustworthy only while the transferred probability stays ≪ 1; at resonance for long times it must be replaced by the exact two-level (Rabi) solution.
  • Key idea: one time integral of a phase gives a sinc² lineshape whose t² peak and 1/t width conspire, via the exact area 2πt, into a delta function — energy conservation and a constant transition rate emerge together as t grows.
The core insight

The first-order transition probability is a single, universal lineshape: P ∝ sin²(ω_fi t/2)/(ω_fi/2)². It peaks where energy is conserved (ω_fi = 0), grows in height as t² and in narrowness as 1/t, and its fixed area 2πt makes it collapse to 2πt·δ(ω_fi) at long times. That delta — a probability growing linearly in time — is the birth of the transition rate and the mathematical heart of Fermi's golden rule.

Where this lives today

The sinc² lineshape is the workhorse of every spectroscopy: the finite-time width ΔE ~ h/t is the Fourier-transform limit that sets the ultimate resolution of a pulsed measurement, from femtosecond laser spectroscopy to Ramsey interferometry in atomic clocks, where longer interrogation times t buy narrower lines. The same first-order amplitude underlies the calculation of photoabsorption cross-sections, radiative decay rates, and — folded against a density of states — the scattering and reaction rates of particle and nuclear physics. The lineshape's collapse to a delta function is the formal justification for treating fast processes with constant rates in kinetics and laser physics, and its breakdown at long times or strong coupling is exactly where the coherent, oscillatory physics of qubits and driven two-level systems takes over.

The physical picture

Picture the system as a state vector pinned almost entirely on the initial eigenstate |i⟩, with a thin thread of amplitude leaking toward every other eigenstate |f⟩. The perturbation is the only thing that can move amplitude between the fixed energy shelves of H₀. To leading order — the "first order" of the title — we ignore the possibility that amplitude, once it reaches f, flows onward; we let the perturbation act exactly once. The amplitude that arrives at f is then the running sum of the perturbation's pushes, each carrying the interaction-picture phase e^{iω_fi t′} that the previous article isolated. The magic is in that phase. If the driving is steady (a constant V), the pushes at successive instants carry phases that rotate at the Bohr frequency ω_fi. When ω_fi is large, consecutive pushes point in different directions and cancel — little amplitude accumulates. When ω_fi → 0, the pushes align and the amplitude piles up. So the transition strongly favours final states at nearly the same energy as the initial one: energy conservation is not imposed, it emerges from the interference of the phases.

Figure
The first-order transition lineshape sin²(ω t⁄2)⁄(ω⁄2)² at times t, 2t, 4t: the central peak grows as t² and narrows as 1⁄t, collapsing toward 2πt·δ(ω)
P(ω_fi , t) = (|V_fi|²⁄ħ²) sin²(ω_fi t⁄2)⁄(ω_fi⁄2)² (V=ħ=1) ω_fi 0 (E_f=E_i) −2π⁄t 2π⁄t t : peak 1 2t : peak 4 4t : peak 16 — sharpening toward 2πt·δ(ω_fi) side lobes shrink relative to the peak: energy conservation tightens as t grows

The height grows as t² and the width shrinks as 1/t. Multiply those together and the area under the peak grows only as t — a fixed rate of probability accumulation. That single observation, drawn on the plot above as the amber curve climbing while its shoulders pull in, is the whole reason transitions have well-defined rates. The width in energy, ΔE ~ 2πħ/t, is the time-energy uncertainty relation reappearing here as the finite-time fuzziness of energy conservation: to sharply conserve energy you must wait a long time, and Energy-Time Uncertainty makes exactly this trade quantitative. A constant perturbation is not the only case. If the perturbation oscillates at frequency ω, the same interference argument shifts the peak away from ω_fi = 0 to ω_fi = ±ω — the system can climb an energy ladder rung ħω by absorbing, or descend by stimulated emission. That shifted resonance is the subject of Harmonic Perturbations and Resonance; here we own the constant-V template that it specialises.

Figure
Where the lineshape peaks: a constant perturbation conserves energy (ω_fi=0); a harmonic drive at ω shifts the peak to absorption ω_fi=+ω and emission ω_fi=−ω
Peak location = where the phases stop cancelling ω_fi constant V → peak at ω_fi = 0 0 emission ω_fi = −ω −ω absorption ω_fi = +ω +ω The constant case (green) is owned here; the shifted resonances (blue/amber) are Harmonic Perturbations and Resonance.

The core equations

The starting point is the interaction-picture coefficient equation established in The Interaction Picture and Time-Dependent Hamiltonians: writing the state as |ψ_I(t)⟩ = Σ_n c_n(t)|n⟩, the coefficients obey ċ_m = −(i/ħ) Σ_n V_mn(t) e^{iω_mn t} c_n, where V_mn = ⟨m|V̂|n⟩ and ω_mn = (E_m − E_n)/ħ. This is exact. First-order perturbation theory, developed in Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory: General Formalism, keeps the leading solution: c_i ≈ 1, all other c_n ≈ 0, so a single final state f receives

cf(1)(t)=−iℏ∫0tVfi(t′) eiωfit′ dt′.c_f^{(1)}(t) = -\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^t V_{fi}(t')\,e^{i\omega_{fi}t'}\,dt'.

where: c_f^{(1)} is the first-order amplitude for the transition i→f; V_{fi} = ⟨f|V̂|i⟩ is the matrix element of the perturbation between the two unperturbed eigenstates; ω_{fi} = (E_f − E_i)/ħ is the Bohr frequency of the pair. The physical reading is that the amplitude at f is the coherent sum of the perturbation's action at every earlier instant, each contribution stamped with the rotating phase e^{iω_{fi}t'}. Squaring gives the transition probability P_{i→f} = |c_f^{(1)}|². For the important case in which V_{fi} does not itself change while the perturbation is on (a constant coupling switched on at t=0), the integral is elementary and yields the lineshape below.

Pi→f(1)(t)=∣Vfi∣2ℏ2 sin⁡2(ωfit/2)(ωfi/2)2.P_{i\to f}^{(1)}(t) = \frac{|V_{fi}|^2}{\hbar^2}\,\frac{\sin^2(\omega_{fi}t/2)}{(\omega_{fi}/2)^2}.

where: the prefactor |V_{fi}|²/ħ² sets the overall strength; the sinc² factor sin²(ω_{fi}t/2)/(ω_{fi}/2)² carries all the time and energy dependence. Physically: the probability is largest when ω_{fi} → 0 (final energy equal to initial), where the factor approaches t²; it oscillates and decays for ω_{fi} ≠ 0.

Derivation AThe first-order amplitude and the sinc-squared lineshape

The goal is to turn the exact first-order integral into the explicit transition probability, and to read off its two defining features — the t² central growth and the 1/t narrowing — because everything downstream (rates, resonance, the golden rule) is a statement about this one function. We take V_{fi} constant in time while the perturbation acts, the canonical "switched-on" case.

Step 1. Insert a constant V_{fi} into the first-order amplitude and do the integral: c_f^{(1)}(t) = −(i/ħ) V_{fi} ∫₀ᵗ e^{iω_{fi}t′} dt′ = −(i/ħ) V_{fi} (e^{iω_{fi}t} − 1)/(iω_{fi}) = −(V_{fi}/ħ)(e^{iω_{fi}t} − 1)/ω_{fi}. Why the integral is elementary: with V_{fi} constant the only time dependence is the phase, so the integral is a geometric accumulation of unit phasors.

Step 2. Factor the phase to expose a real magnitude: e^{iω_{fi}t} − 1 = e^{iω_{fi}t/2}(e^{iω_{fi}t/2} − e^{−iω_{fi}t/2}) = e^{iω_{fi}t/2}·2i sin(ω_{fi}t/2). Hence |e^{iω_{fi}t} − 1| = 2|sin(ω_{fi}t/2)|. Why this trick: pulling out the half-angle phase turns the difference of exponentials into a clean sine, the standard route to a sinc lineshape.

Step 3. Square the amplitude: P_{i→f}^{(1)} = |c_f^{(1)}|² = (|V_{fi}|²/ħ²)·(4 sin²(ω_{fi}t/2))/ω_{fi}² = (|V_{fi}|²/ħ²)·sin²(ω_{fi}t/2)/(ω_{fi}/2)². Why the 4 becomes a (ω/2)²: writing the denominator as (ω_{fi}/2)² keeps the small-argument limit manifest.

Step 4. Read the two limits. As ω_{fi} → 0, sin²(ω_{fi}t/2)/(ω_{fi}/2)² → t², so the resonant (energy-conserving) probability grows as (|V_{fi}|²/ħ²)t². For fixed t the first zero away from the peak sits at ω_{fi}t/2 = π, i.e. ω_{fi} = 2π/t, so the central-peak width narrows as 1/t. Why this matters: t² up, 1/t wide — the product (the area, hence the rate) grows only linearly, the fact the next card exploits. *Verified: verify_aq-qm-first-order-transition-probability.py reproduces c_f^{(1)} = −(V/ħ)(e^{iωt}−1)/ω symbolically, confirms P = (|V|²/ħ²)sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² by sampling, the ω→0 limit (|V|²/ħ²)t², and the first zero at ω = 2π/t.*

The next card is the article's owned structural result: the exact-area identity that makes the lineshape a delta function, and hence the transition into a continuum a constant rate. This is the piece Fermi's Golden Rule consumes by name.

Go deeper · Derivation B · 2 minWhy the lineshape becomes a delta function and the rate becomes constant
Derivation BWhy the lineshape becomes a delta function and the rate becomes constant

The goal is to prove — not assert — that the sinc² lineshape has a fixed area 2πt independent of shape details, so that as t grows it collapses onto a Dirac delta in ω_{fi}. This is the mathematical event that converts a probability (which could in principle oscillate) into a rate (which accumulates steadily), and it is the single fact the golden rule is built on.

Step 1. Compute the total area under the lineshape in ω. The claim is ∫_{−∞}^{∞} sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² dω = 2πt. Substituting u = ωt/2 turns this into (2/t)·t²·∫ sin²u/u² du·(1) and the standard integral ∫_{−∞}^{∞} sin²u/u² du = π gives exactly 2πt. Why the area, not the height: the height is t-dependent and diverges, but the area is the invariant that survives the limit.

Step 2. Normalise. Divide the lineshape by its area to build D_t(ω) = sin²(ωt/2)/(2π t (ω/2)²). By construction ∫ D_t(ω) dω = 1 for every t, its peak height D_t(0) = t/(2π) grows without bound, and its width shrinks as 1/t. Why these three properties: unit area, diverging peak, vanishing width are precisely the defining features of a nascent delta function.

Step 3. Take the limit. A family with unit area, peak → ∞, and width → 0 satisfies ∫ D_t(ω) g(ω) dω → g(0) for any smooth test function g. Therefore D_t(ω) → δ(ω) as t → ∞, equivalently sin²(ω_{fi}t/2)/(ω_{fi}/2)² → 2π t δ(ω_{fi}). Why "smooth g": the density of final states ρ(E) plays the role of g in the golden rule — the delta then picks the final states at exactly E_f = E_i.

Step 4. Read the consequence for the rate. When the final states form a continuum, the total probability is ∫ dE_f ρ(E_f) P_{i→f}^{(1)}(t); the delta collapses the integral and, because the sinc² carries a factor 2πt, the probability grows linearly in t. A probability linear in t is a constant rate — the golden rule Γ = (2π/ħ)|V_{fi}|²ρ, assembled by name in the dedicated article. Why linear-in-t is decisive: only a linear growth defines a t-independent rate; the t² central growth is for a single discrete state, which instead oscillates. *Verified: verify_...py evaluates the area integral ∫ sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² dω = 2πt symbolically (result 2π·t), confirms ∫ D_t dω = 1 for t = 5, 20, 80, and shows ∫ D_t(ω)cos(ω) dω → 1 as t grows (the delta action).*

Limiting cases

regimewhat P_{i→f}(t) doesreading
ω_{fi} → 0 (E_f = E_i)→ (V_{fi}²/ħ²) t²resonant, energy-conserving growth; largest transition
ω_{fi} t ≫ 1, off peakoscillates as sin²(ω_{fi}t/2), amplitude ∝ 1/ω_{fi}²far final states barely populated; phases cancel
t → ∞ (continuum of f)lineshape → 2πt δ(ω_{fi}); P grows ∝ tconstant rate → Fermi's golden rule
t → 0 (any ω_{fi})→ (V_{fi}²/ħ²) t²universal short-time quadratic growth (the "sudden" onset)
V_{fi}large or t large so P ~ 1first-order theory breaks downmust use the exact two-level (Rabi) solution

Worked examples

Example 1 — the sinc² lineshape for a concrete two-level pair. A perturbation with constant matrix element V_{fi} = 0.10 eV couples two states split by ΔE = E_f − E_i = 2.0 eV. Using ħ = 6.582 × 10⁻¹⁶ eV·s:

Step 1. The Bohr frequency: ω_{fi} = ΔE/ħ = 2.0 / (6.582 × 10⁻¹⁶) = 3.04 × 10¹⁵ rad/s.

Step 2. The probability at t = 1 fs. The dimensionless form is convenient: (|V_{fi}|²/ħ²)/(ω_{fi}/2)² = (2V_{fi}/ħω_{fi})² = (2V_{fi}/ΔE)² = (2·0.10/2.0)² = 0.010. Then P^{(1)}(1 fs) = 0.010 × sin²(ω_{fi}·10⁻¹⁵/2) = 0.010 × sin²(1.519) = 0.010 × 0.997 = 9.97 × 10⁻³.

Step 3. The first zero. The lineshape vanishes when ω_{fi}t/2 = π, i.e. t = 2π/ω_{fi} = 6.283/(3.04 × 10¹⁵) = 2.07 fs. At any multiple of this time the far-off-resonant transition amplitude returns to zero — the probability into this single non-resonant state simply oscillates and never accumulates.

Reading: even with a coupling as large as 0.10 eV, an off-resonant transition (ΔE = 2 eV ≫ V_{fi}) transfers only ~1% of the population, and that 1% sloshes back and forth. Real net transitions require either resonance (ω_{fi} → 0) or a continuum of final states.

Example 2 — the area is fixed while the peak climbs. Take V = ħ = 1 (natural units) so the lineshape is sin²(ω t/2)/(ω/2)².

Step 1. Central peak at three times: P(0, t) = t², so P(0, 1) = 1, P(0, 2) = 4, P(0, 4) = 16 — the peak climbs as t².

Step 2. Central width at the same times: first zero at ω = 2π/t, so widths 6.28, 3.14, 1.57 — the peak narrows as 1/t.

Step 3. The area, height × width up to a shape constant: ∫ sin²(ωt/2)/(ω/2)² dω = 2πt = 6.28, 12.57, 25.13. The area grows only linearly — height × width = t² × (1/t) = t. This is why probability into a continuum accumulates at a constant rate while probability into one state merely oscillates.

Reading: the plot's three curves make the point visually — the amber (t = 4) curve is sixteen times taller than the green (t = 1) but only a quarter as wide, and the balance is a linear-in-t area, the mathematical origin of every transition rate in quantum mechanics.

Physicist

Origins · 1 minTransition Probability and how this was discovered
TP
Transition Probability
1926–1927 · Göttingen and Cambridge

The first-order transition amplitude in the form used here — a discrete state coupled by a time-dependent perturbation to a manifold of others, with the probability read off from the squared amplitude — was written down by Paul Dirac in his 1927 paper on the quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation. Dirac's calculation produced both the sinc² lineshape and, by folding it against a continuum, the transition-rate formula that Fermi would later christen the golden rule. The language of a "transition probability per unit time" — a probability that grows linearly in t and so defines a rate — is Dirac's, and it remains the organising idea of every calculation of absorption, emission, decay, and scattering.

History
1926
— Schrödinger formulates perturbation theory for the wave equation
1927
— Dirac derives the first-order transition amplitude and the sinc² lineshape in his radiation paper
1928
— Born treats scattering as a transition between plane-wave states (the constant-perturbation golden rule)
1930
— the "transition probability per unit time" becomes the standard language of spectroscopy and decay

Going further

For the exact statements and derivations behind this article, the standard references are Griffiths (Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed., Ch. 11), Sakurai & Napolitano (Modern Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., §5.6–5.7), Shankar (Ch. 18), Cohen-Tannoudji (Vol. II, Ch. XIII), and Townsend (Ch. 14). The first-order amplitude here is set up by The Interaction Picture and Time-Dependent Hamiltonians and the perturbation expansion by Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory: General Formalism; the sinc²-to-delta limit is consumed by Fermi's Golden Rule together with the Density of Final States, the peak-shift to ±ω by Harmonic Perturbations and Resonance, the switched-on detail by Constant Perturbation Switched On, and the exact non-perturbative treatment by the two-level Rabi article. Provenance note (verbatim from the source export): Equations derived from the interaction-picture Schrödinger equation; verifier should reproduce the first-order amplitude (Griffiths 3e Eq. 11.17 / Sakurai 2e §5.6), the constant-perturbation sinc² (Griffiths Eq. 11.34), the harmonic two-term result (Griffiths Eq. 11.35), and Fermi's Golden Rule (Sakurai §5.7) including the 4sin⁡2(ωt/2)ω2→2πt δ(ω)\frac{4\sin^2(\omega t/2)}{\omega^2}\to 2\pi t\,\delta(\omega) limit. Numerical constants (2π/ℏ2\pi/\hbar, factors of 4) are standard textbook values; no nonstandard numbers used.

Why is the amplitude a time integral rather than an instantaneous value?

Because the perturbation acts continuously, and quantum amplitudes add coherently. The amplitude at the final state after time t is the sum of the contributions the perturbation delivered at every earlier instant t′, each carrying the phase e^{iω_{fi}t′} it accumulated by the time you look. The integral is that coherent sum. If the phases align (ω_{fi} ≈ 0) the contributions reinforce; if they rotate quickly they cancel — which is exactly why the lineshape is peaked at energy conservation.

What is ω_{fi} and why does its sign matter?

ω_{fi} = (E_f − E_i)/ħ is the Bohr frequency of the transition. Its sign encodes direction: ω_{fi} > 0 means the final state is higher (energy absorbed), ω_{fi} < 0 means lower (energy released). For a constant perturbation the lineshape depends only on ω_{fi}², so both directions look symmetric and peak at ω_{fi} = 0. For a harmonic perturbation the two signs separate into absorption (ω_{fi} = +ω) and stimulated emission (ω_{fi} = −ω) — that splitting is owned by the harmonic-perturbation article.

Does energy conservation get violated at short times?

Energy conservation is not a rigid constraint at finite times; it is an emergent sharpening. The lineshape has a finite width ΔE ~ 2πħ/t, so transitions to states off by up to that amount are allowed early on. As t → ∞ the width shrinks to zero and strict energy conservation is recovered. This is the time-energy uncertainty relation in action, quantified in Energy-Time Uncertainty — it is not a loophole, just the finite-time fuzziness that any real measurement carries.

Why does the probability into a single state oscillate but into a band accumulate?

For one discrete final state the sinc² simply oscillates in t at fixed ω_{fi}: amplitude flows to f and back. For a continuum you integrate over ω_{fi} with a smooth density ρ; the oscillations in different final states get out of step and average out, leaving the delta-function contribution that grows linearly in t. Coherence within one channel gives oscillation; incoherent summation over a band gives a rate. This is precisely the discrete-vs-continuum distinction that separates Rabi flopping from Fermi's golden rule.

Where exactly does first-order perturbation theory fail?

It fails when the transferred probability is no longer small — when Σ_{f≠i}|c_f^{(1)}|² is not ≪ 1. This happens at exact resonance for long times (the amplitude would grow without bound in first order, which is unphysical) and for strong coupling. The cure is the exact two-level solution: the amplitude that first order predicts growing as (Vt/ħ)² is really the short-time piece of sin²(Vt/ħ), and the two agree only while Vt/ħ is small.

Is the constant-perturbation case really physical, or just a warm-up?

It is genuinely physical. A perturbation switched on and held constant models scattering off a static potential (the Born approximation is exactly this first-order constant-perturbation calculation folded against a density of states) and any process where the coupling does not itself oscillate. The dedicated Constant Perturbation Switched On article develops the switch-on transient and the energy-conserving rate; here we own the underlying integral and lineshape that it and the harmonic case both specialise.

Why is the prefactor |V_{fi}|²/ħ² and not something with the energies in it?

Because to first order only the coupling between the two states enters — the perturbation acts once, so the amplitude is linear in V_{fi} and the probability quadratic. The energies enter only through the phase ω_{fi} inside the sinc², controlling where the lineshape peaks, not its overall strength. This is the sharp contrast with static perturbation theory, where energy denominators (E_i − E_m) appear because there the perturbation dresses a stationary level; here it drives a transition between levels.

Before this

Where this leads