Locally Gauge-Invariant Formulation of Parastatistics

  • O. W. Greenberg
  • K. I. Macrae
Part of the Progress in Physics book series (PMP, volume 8)


The color degree of freedom of hadronic physics was first Introduced [4] in the context of para-Fermi statistics of order three for quarks. Bose and Fermi combinations of para-Fermi quarks are in one-to-one correspondence with the color singlets of the formulation with explicit color [11]. Thus the counting of states, and the explanation of the apparent conflict with the spin-statistics theorem with quarks in the symmetric representation of SU(6) [9] are In agreement with the explicit color formulation, as is the “symmetric quark model” for baryons[4,6], which was first proposed In the context of the para-Fermi formulation. Other predictions of the two formulations which agree Include the decay rate for π 0 to two photons, and, at least from the standpoint of naive counting, the ratio of the cross sections of e+e to hadrons to that to μ+μ. The gauge theory of color, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) differs, however, from the ungauged parastatistics formulation in predictions involving gluons, such as quark and gluon Jets and the existence of glueballs. The main point of this talk is that parastatistics can be gauged and that, when gauged, it is equivalent to the corresponding Yang-Mills gauge theory, in particular, for the case of para-Fermi quarks of order three, to QCD [81].


Gauge Theory Clifford Algebra Spinor Field Anticommutation Relation Color Degree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    P. G. O. Freund, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2322 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. B. Govorkov, Dubua preprints P2-81-749, P2-82-296, and E-2-82-470Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. S. Green, Phys. Rev. 90, 270 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    O. W. Creenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21. 598 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    O. W. Greenberg and A. M. L. Messiah, Phys. Rev. 138. B1155 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    O. W. Greenberg and M. Resnikoff, Phys. Rev. 163. 1844 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    O. W. Greenberg and C. A. Nelson. Phys. Reports 32C, 69 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    O. W. Creenberg and K. I. Macrae, Nucl. Phys. B219, 358 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    F. Gürsey and L. A. Radicati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 173 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Günaydin and P. Gürsey. Gürsey, in Proceedings of the Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Problems in High Energy Particle Theory. 1974, edited by C. Donokoe and S. Kövesi-Domokos ( Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1974 ), p. 15.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Y. Han and Y. Nambu. Phys. Rev. 139, B1006 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston, Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. W. Greenberg
    • 1
  • K. I. Macrae
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations