Active vs passive transformation in right handed particle People often says that active transformation is equivalent to passive transformation.
Suppose that we have a right handed particle that is, the spin and the momentum are pointing in the same direction, call this direction  right. Under a passive   parity transformation the the spin continues to point to right while the momentum is now pointing to the left.
My question is, in a real world if we inverse the particle  momentum , does it turn in to a left handed particle? If not ,does this mean, that passive transformation and active transformation are not equivalent?
Note I am considering here passive transformation as  transformation in a measurer apparatus. People often consider passive transformation as coordinate transformation but  coordinates are imagination of our mind ,it does has no effect in physics
 A: 
if we inverse the particle momentum , does it turn in to a left handed particle?

Particle is right-handed if spin vector is in the same direction as particle momentum vector and left-handed if these directions are opposite :

So basically answer is that you can inverse particle helicity from right-handed to left-handed (or in reverse) by reversing it's spin OR momentum (but not both). So the answer is YES, it will turn to left-handed from right-handed.
A: This wretched business of active vs passive transformations is very confusing, and I think I'm not alone in saying this, not even in this for-the-most-part expert community. I know for a fact that physicists I've learned to admire and respect systematically refuse to answer questions about subtle differences between the active vs passive POV. You can do a lot of good physics without ever thinking about it.

*

*Active transformations are actual transformations that can be defined mathematically, but also have a real counterpart –an actual physicist in an actual laboratory– to go with them, that is at least thinkable as a gedanken, or sophisticated “what if”. They can also be performed incrementally to parts of a system, until they include the whole universe. Or you can at least think about them in such way.


*Passive transformations, on the contrary, are sheer re-labelings of the mathematical coordinates that we use to change the description for a series of different reasons. Paramount among them, to solve the equations.
An active transformation that can be applied to increasingly bigger and bigger parts of the universe, can be viewed as the corresponding passive transformation, but their mathematical embodiments are inverse of each other.
In my opinion the suite of symmetries $\left\{ C,P,T\right\}$  cannot be considered under the scope of active transformations because there simply is no conceivable way to look at them in any way as “external”, nor there is any conceivable way to consider them in an incremental way, like you can do with rotations and translations –translate or rotate this or that part, but leave the rest of the laboratory alone–. Neither can you, or I, or anybody, tell a real physicist to take this electron and “invert its time” (incrementally: just for this electron) or take the whole universe and invert its time. Same with gauge charge; same with parity. Internal symmetries are fundamentally disconnected from the usual strictures of operational physics.
Now, you ask for reputable sources. The most reputable source I can think of is the whole internet, which includes pretty much everything, reputable or not. Try and look up “active vs passive transformation parity” or “active vs passive transformation charge conjugation”. There seems to be some loose connection, but when you look closer, CPT and Lorentz boosts, or rotations, etc. are discussed, one after another. And it's only when discussing space-time symmetries, like boosts and the like, that any distinction “passive” vs “active” occurs.
Edit:
This not to say that you cannot combine both in a utilitarian way sometimes. A very well known example is the connection spin-statistics, in which a parity transformation is related to a rotation for an especially simple system. But I think the connection is very limited in scope.
A: Active & Passive Transformations
Active and passive transformations are not the same. To understand this properly requires a local frame in a space. Now, we can either transform the  space itself or the frame. In the first case, the transformation is called an active, in the second case, it is called passive.
It is called active in the first case because the points of space actually move, whilst the frame is left alone. It is called passive in the second case because the points of space don't move, whilst the frame itself changes.
Vectors & Pseudo-vectors
Vectors can be classified by how they behave when space is inverted, that is reflected in a plane. When the vector stays as it is we call it an ordinary vector and when it also inverts, then we say it is a pseudovector. Linear momentum is a vector whilst angular momentum is a pseudovector.
