2 questions on symmetries: conserved in interaction => eigenstate in interaction ?

[nonequilibrium]

2 questions on symmetries: "conserved in interaction => eigenstate in interaction"?

Hello, I'm currently taking an introductory course in elementary particles (level: Griffiths) and I have 2 questions that are severely bothering me; all help is appreciated! They are related to Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles".

A) Say observable A (with operator $\hat A$) is conserved in, say, the strong interaction, then why must any particle interacting with the strong force (incoming or outgoing) be in an eigenstate of $\hat A$? For example in the strong interaction (which conserves S) particles must be in an S eigenstate, or in the presumption that the weak force conserves CP, the particles would have to be in a CP eigenstate to partake in weak decay. Why?

B) After establishing that the K-naught particles are not CP-eigenstates, Griffiths construes eigenstates $| K_1 \rangle := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |K^0 \rangle - | \overline K^0 \rangle \right)$ and analogously $| K_2 \rangle$ since if the weak force conserves CP, then kaons can only interact with the weak force in the forms of the (only) CP eigenstates $|K_1 \rangle$ and $|K_2\rangle$ (cf A). He then mentions that CP is not conserved, and finally claims (p147)

Evidently, the long-lived neutral kaon is not a perfect eigenstate of CP after all, but contains a small admixture of $K_1$:
$|K_L \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}} \left( |K_2 \rangle + \epsilon |K_1 \rangle \right)$

But how does this follow? I have no clue! In Griffiths it was proven that K_1 and K_2 are CP eigenstates, so what is he saying?

 

[strangerep]

In Griffiths it was proven that K_1 and K_2 are CP eigenstates, so what is he saying?

Let's review some stuff about ordinary spin again. A spin-1/2 particle can have either spin-up or spin-down along an arbitrary direction. Let's say we pick the z direction. The operator for the z-component of the angular momentum vector is denoted $J_z$. Now suppose we send a beam of such particles through a Stern-Gerlach setup which outputs two beams corresponding to the 2 possible orientations of $J_z$. Now we pick one of those output beams and try to measure the x component of spin $J_x$. What happens? We find that half have $J_x$ along the +x direction and the rest in the -x direction. This is because the $J_z$ and $J_x$ operators don't commute. Hence they do not have simultaneous eigenvectors. (That can only happen if the operators commute). A specific eigenvector of $J_z$ is in general a superposition of eigenvectors of $J_x$.

The same essential principle underlies what Griffiths is saying about the K states.
If K_1 and K_2 are CP eigenstates then an arbitrary superposition of them is not (in general).

(Not sure how much of this will make sense, but I guess you'll tell me...)

 

[nonequilibrium]

Oh my, I'm sorry, first of all it seems I had misread Griffiths' quote! I think I read that K_L (defind as such) was an eigenstate of CP, which is of course ridiculous, hence my confusion. I'm sorry for wasting your time. So to be clear: the things you said are familiar to me.

However, even reading the above Griffiths quote correctly, I still don't understand it (as in: I don't see how he draws that conclusion), but I think I would understand it if I understood my question (A), so everything comes back to my first question: how does it follow that if an interaction conserves observable A, only eigenstates of $\hat A$ can experience that interaction force? (and apparently the other way around is also true, and that would answer my revised question (B))

 

[samalkhaiat]

A) Say observable A (with operator $\hat A$) is conserved in, say, the strong interaction, then why must any particle interacting with the strong force (incoming or outgoing) be in an eigenstate of $\hat A$? For example in the strong interaction (which conserves S) particles must be in an S eigenstate, or in the presumption that the weak force conserves CP, the particles would have to be in a CP eigenstate to partake in weak decay. Why?

You will understand this better when you study Noether theorem; if you think of $\hat{A}$ as conserved “charge”, then only charged particles, i.e., the eigenstates of the conserved charge, will experience the interaction described by $\hat{A}$.

I tell people to think of particle as a set of charges (a collection of real numbers);
Space-time charges (mass and angular momentum) related to the Poincare symmetry group. These put restriction on possible motion in space-time.
Internal charges (electric, iso-spin, strangeness, ...) related to certain groups of “internal” symmetry. These put restrictions on possible “motions in the internal space” i.e., interactions.

B) After establishing that the K-naught particles are not CP-eigenstates, Griffiths construes eigenstates $| K_1 \rangle := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |K^0 \rangle - | \overline K^0 \rangle \right)$ and analogously $| K_2 \rangle$ since if the weak force conserves CP, then kaons can only interact with the weak force in the forms of the (only) CP eigenstates $|K_1 \rangle$ and $|K_2\rangle$ (cf A). He then mentions that CP is not conserved, and finally claims (p147)
But how does this follow? I have no clue! In Griffiths it was proven that K_1 and K_2 are CP eigenstates, so what is he saying?

An elementary, yet extremely accurate, treatment of $K^{0}-\bar{K}^{0}$ mixing, CP violation and strangeness oscillations can be found in chapter 9 of the following textbook;

Particle Physics
B. R. Martin, G. Shaw
John Wiley & Sons 1992.

Sam