# Invariance Principles

## Abstract

The important role of invariance principles in physical theory was recognized only relatively recently, after the development of analytical dynamics. In classical mechanics, the equations of motion are completely solved if one knows all the constants of motion, therefore the problem of solving the equations of motion is the same as the problem of finding all the “angle” variables ϕ_{ k }, viz those coordinates which the Hamiltonian is independent of, since the canonically conjugate “action” variables *J* _{ k } are constant in time. Since the *J* _{ k } are also the generators of infinitesimal canonical transformations which induce changes of the ϕ_{ k } alone, recognition of all the invariance transformations of the Hamiltonian, and identification of the corresponding generators, is equivalent to a complete solution of the equations of motion. In quantum theory, the situation is a little more complex in that there is a limitation of principle in the extent to which one can specify the state of a dynamical system, and therefore *a fortiori*, in the manner in which one can trace its evolution in time. The corresponding statement is that, if one can find a maximal set of commuting operators, each of which commutes with the Hamiltonian, then the states which are simultaneous eigenstates of all those operators have a particularly simple time dependence.

## Keywords

Quark Model Invariance Principle Nuclear Force Pseudoscalar Meson Baryon State## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]For a slightly more expanded discussion of these arguments, see e.g. P.K. Kabir in “Symmetries in Elementary Particle Physics”, A. Zichichi, ed. (Academic Press, New York & London, 1965).Google Scholar
- [2]E.P. Wigner, Nobel Lectures (Elsevier, Amsterdam & New York, 1964).Google Scholar
- [3]W. Heisenberg, Introduction to the Unified Field Theory of Elementary Particles (Interscience, London, 1966).MATHGoogle Scholar
- [4]See e.g. footnote 20 of R. Houtappel, H. Van Dam, and E.P. Wigner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1965) 595.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [5]J.J. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 4461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [6]M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne’eman, The Eightfold Way (Benjamin, New York, 1965).Google Scholar
- [7]For a review, see G. Morpurgo, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sc. 20 (1970) 105.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [8]R.P. Feynman, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Neutrinos, Philadelphia 1974, (American Inst, of Physics, New York 1974).Google Scholar
- [9]Denen et al. Nucl. Phys. B85 (1975) 269.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [10]S. Glasgow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 675.Google Scholar
- [11]J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 617.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [12]G. Barton, Nuovo Cim. 19 (1961) 512.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [13]D. Tadic, Proc. GIFT Seminar 1974, Zaragoza, 2, 168.Google Scholar
- [14]S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D5 (1972) 1412.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [15]M. Bouchiat and C. Bouchiat, Phys. Lett. 48B (1974) 111.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [16]J. Bernabeu, T. Ericson, and C. Jarlskog, Phys. Lett. 50B (1974) 467.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [17]F.C. Michel, Phys. Rev. B329 (1964) 133.Google Scholar
- [18]P.K. Kabir, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 540.ADSGoogle Scholar
- [19]F.S. Crawford, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 1045. P. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 150.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [20]J.S. Bell and J. Steinberger, Proc. Oxford Intl. Conf. on Elementary Particles 1965 (Rutherford Laboratory, Chilton) (1966).Google Scholar
- [21]K. Kleinknecht, Proc. XVII Intl. High Energy Physics Conf. London 1974 (Rutherford Laboratory, Chilton) (1974).Google Scholar
- [22]H. Faissner, Proc. XV Intl. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Kiev 1970 (Naukova Dumka, Kiev 1972).Google Scholar
- [23]B.G. Kenny and R.G. Sachs, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1605.ADSGoogle Scholar