text:
# On the quantum mechanical nature in liquid NMR quantum computing

## Abstract

The quantum nature of bulk ensemble NMR quantum computing —the center of recent heated debate, is addressed. Concepts of the mixed state and entanglement are examined, and the data in a 2 qubit liquid NMR quantum computation are analyzed. It is pointed out that the key problem in the current debate is the understanding of entanglement in a mixed state system. The following points are concluded in this Letter: 1)Density matrix describes the “state” of an average particle in an ensemble. It can not describe the state of an individual particle in an ensemble in detail; 2) Entanglement is a property of the wave function of a quantum particle(such as an molecule in a liquid NMR sample). Separability of the density matrix can not be used to measure the entanglement of mixed ensemble; 3)The evolution of states in bulk-ensemble NMR quantum computation is quantum mechanical; 4) The coefficient before the effective pure state density matrix, $`ϵ`$, is an measure of the simultaneity of the molecules in an ensemble. It reflects the intensity of the NMR signal and has no significance in quantifying the entanglement in the bulk ensemble NMR system. We conclude that the liquid NMR quantum computation is genuine, not just classical simulations.

Computers based on quantum mechanical principle of superposition can do computation much faster than classical computers. The proposals for quantum computing using liquid-state NMR have accelerated the experimental studies of quantum computing in demonstrating quantum algorithms and quantum error correction codes. However this approach has been in the center of a heated debate. The center of the debate is whether liquid NMR quantum computations carried out so far are genuine quantum computation.

To implement a quantum computation, one has to use a quantum mechanical system to represent the wave function and to enbody the quantum computation operation. In a liquid NMR system at room temperature, the system is in a thermal equilibrium and the molecules are not in the same quantum state. One has to construct an effective pure state by certain method, exhaustive averaging for example. After this, the density matrix for the system can be written as

$`\rho =(1ϵ)I/d+ϵ\rho _1,`$ (1)
where $`I`$ is the identity matrix in $`d=2^N`$ dimension, and $`N`$ is the number of qubit. $`\rho _1`$ is the density matrix for a pure state. It is found that when $`ϵ`$ in equation (1) is smaller than a critical value which is true for all the present NMR experiments carried so far, the density matrix can be decomposed into a linear combination of products of the states of the individual qubits. Separable density matrix represents separable state which can be written as product of the composite particle wave functions and they are unentangled. It was argued that since the density matrix is separable for small $`ϵ`$, there was no entanglement. The bulk ensemble NMR computation experiments carried so far are not genuine quantum computations and can only be considered as classical simulations of the quantum computation, a point strongly disagreed by Laflamme. In this Letter we will address this issue by examining the concepts of mixed state and the concept of entanglement. We also analyzed the evolution of the density matrices in a 2 qubit NMR quantum computation and compare them with prediction of quantum mechanics.

Microscopic particle, such as a molecule, obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. Its state is fully described by a wave function whose time evolution is the Schödinger equation. We do not talk about the state of a particle pure or mixed. Because it is always described by a wave function in quantum mechanics. Pure or mixed state refers to an ensemble. By pure state, we mean that all the molecules in an ensemble have the same quantum wave function. In other words, every particle in the ensemble can be described by the same wave function. By mixed state, we mean that the molecules in an ensemble are not in the same quantum state, but rather has a classical distribution of the molecules in different quantum states: $`n_1`$ particles in state $`|\psi _1`$, $`n_2`$ particiles in state $`|\psi _2`$ …. Each of the particle in the ensemble is in a quantum state, described by a wave function. However, we do not have the detailed information for each particle and what we know is just the property of an average particle in the ensemble. To describe the property of an average particle in an ensemble, we use the density matrix which was invented by Von Neunmann. In the 2 qubit system such as phosphoric acid for example, there are 4 quantum states, $`|00`$, $`|01`$,$`|10`$ and $`|11`$, where the first bit represent the nuclear spin of the 31P and the second bit represents the nuclear spin of hydrogen atom. If all the phosphoric acid molecules are in the same state, say, $`|00`$, then we have a pure state. For liquid NMR sample at room temperature, the molecules are in the thermal equilibrium and the ensemble is described by a mixed state.

The idea of entanglement was first formulated by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. When we say the wave function of a quantum system is entangled we mean that the wave function of the whole system can not be factorized into a product of the wave functions of the constituent particles. It should be stressed that here the constituent particles are all quantum mechanically related one another, such as the nuclear spins of the hydrogen atom and 31P in a phosphoric acid molecule, not the molecules of an ensemble.

Now we study the concept of entanglement in a mixed state. First it is easy to see that the same density matrix can be prepared in numerous ways. For example, in a two qubit system, a density matrix which is 1/4 of a unit matrix can be prepared by putting into the ensemble with a quarter of particles in each of the 4 states with spin up and down along the $`z`$-axis:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|0000|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|0101|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|1010|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|1111|.`$ (2)
The same density matrix can be obtained by putting a quarter number of particles into the ensemble in each of the 4 Bell states.

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|00+|11)(00|+11|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|00|11)(00|11|)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|01+|10)(01|+10|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|01|10)(01|10|).`$
Though the density matrices are the same, the physical systems are completely different. There are infinite number of ways to prepare a system with a given density matrix. This is not surprising, since density matrix describes only the average property of a system. In this example, both ensembles can be viewed as an ensemble consisting of 4 sub-ensembles with each sub-ensemble in a pure quantum state. The molecules in these ensembles have quite different entanglement properties. In (2), each individual molecule wave function is factorisable, whereas in (4), each individual molecule is non-separable and is enatngled. Since density matrix for a mixed ensemble describes only the average property and different physical systems can have the same density matrix, one can not tell whether a mixed state ensemble is entangled or not. Even if a density matrix is separable, it does not mean neccesarily the molecules in the ensemble is entangled unless the system is prepared in the way as suggested by the decomposition. Two ensembles such as (2) and (4) may have identical density matrices, but the physical systems are completely different, though we do not have any measurement to distinguish them. From the mathematical properties of the density matrix alone, one can not draw conclusions about the detailed properties of the individual particles of the system. The physical properties of the ensemble depend on the history or the method of its preparation . The pure state is an exception, because all the molecules are in the same quantum state, the average property of the system is identical to the property of an individual particle.

Secondly, even we know the history of the ensemble and locate the physical system, the density matrix of an ensemble reflect only the properties of an average particle in an ensemble and does not tell the information of an individual particle in the ensemble. From the density matrix, we can not say more about a particle than its average property. Taking for example the systems represented by (2) and (4)(Here we use the expansion in the equation to specify its preparation procedure.) The difference in the properties of the invidual particles in the two ensembles can not be reflected in the density matrix.

Thirdly, entanglement is a concept for a quantum system only, a single molecule for instance. We can talk about the entanglement of wave functions of nuclear spins of the hydrogen atom and the 31P atom of a single phosphoric molecule. But we can not talk about the entanglement properties between two molecules in an ensemble. This is true for a pure ensemble. What is meant by entanglement is the entanglement within each individual molecule,not the entanglement between different molecules in the ensemble, and the molecules in the ensemble are independent of one another. The purity of the state is a measure of purity of the ensemble, or the synchronization or simultaneity of the wave functions of the molecules in the ensemble. When quantum computation is performed in a pure ensemble(a pure state), each molecule in the ensemble undergoes the same evolution simultaneously. For a mixed ensemble, the quantum computation operation is performed on molecules in different quantum states, including the state we are interested in. Effective pure state preparation procedure is only a way to extract the required signal. In a simple example, let’s look at a one qubit system. Suppose the density matrix of the system can be written as $`\rho =\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{5}{8}& 0\\ 0& \frac{3}{8}\end{array}\right]`$. In a extremely simplified illustration, we can imagine that there are 8 2-level particle. Five of them are in state $`|0`$ and three particles are in state $`|1`$. When we measure the system which is a radio frequency pulse in NMR, both $`|0|1`$(upward) and $`|1|0`$(downward) transitions are induced. The transition signals meet in the coil, 3 upward transitions cancel with 3 downward transitions. The net signal in the coil is 2 upward transitions. This is equivalent to a pure system with two particles in state $`|0`$. When the number of qubits becomes large, effective pure state procedures are used to make unwanted signals cancel and the required signals collected. From this simple picture we see $`ϵ`$, the coefficient before the effective pure state density in (1) is just a measure of the number of molecules in the required state whose signal can be read out. It is closely related to the intensity of the readout signal. There is no essential difference between an NMR experiment with $`ϵ=1`$ and one with a smaller $`ϵ`$ value.

In a liquid NMR experiment, the evolution of the molecules in the ensemble are quantum mechanical. We have analyzed the experimental data between two steps in a phase matching study of the generalized quantum searching algorithm. The details of the quantum algorithm is not important here. We give here the transformation matrix for a step in the quantum computation is

$`c=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \frac{3}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{3}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{3}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}+\frac{I}{4}& \hfill \frac{1}{4}\frac{3I}{4}\end{array}\right].`$ (9)
What we are interested in is the evolution of the density matrix. The density matrix is obtained by the quantum state tomography technique directly from experiment,

$`\rho (1)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0.1794& \hfill 0.1591+0.0208I& \hfill 0.06010.0001I& \hfill 0.04830.0549I\\ \hfill 0.15910.0208I& \hfill 0.2453& \hfill 0.12470.0281I& \hfill 0.05140.1534I\\ \hfill 0.0601+0.0001I& \hfill 0.1247+0.0281I& \hfill 0.3616& \hfill 0.0099+0.0682I\\ \hfill 0.0483+0.0549I& \hfill 0.0514+0.1534I& \hfill 0.00990.0682I& \hfill 0.2137\end{array}\right].`$ (14)
After one step of quantum computation manipulation, the density matrix is constructed by quantum state tomography again,

$`\rho ^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0.2278& \hfill 0.0858+0.0186I& \hfill 0.0640+0.0387I& \hfill 0.06910.0372I\\ \hfill 0.08580.0186I& \hfill 0.1006& \hfill 0.10190.0062I& \hfill 0.16500.0893I\\ \hfill 0.06400.0387I& \hfill 0.1019+0.0062I& \hfill 0.3921& \hfill 0.04540.0111I\\ \hfill 0.0691+0.0372I& \hfill 0.1650+0.0893I& \hfill 0.0454+0.0111I& \hfill 0.2794\end{array}\right].`$ (19)
The theoretical prediction of the density matrix using quantum mechanics through $`\rho _{th}^{}=c\rho c^{}`$ is

$`\rho _{th}^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0.1849& \hfill 0.0891+0.0599I& \hfill 0.0758+0.0225I& \hfill 0.11460.0439I\\ \hfill 0.08910.0599I& \hfill 0.0999& \hfill 0.06500.0446I& \hfill 0.13770.0861I\\ \hfill 0.07580.0225I& \hfill 0.0650+0.0446I& \hfill 0.3876& \hfill 0.00180.0083I\\ \hfill 0.1146+0.0439I& \hfill 0.1377+0.0861I& \hfill 0.0018+0.0083I& \hfill 0.3277\end{array}\right].`$ (24)
The theoretical prediction of the evolution of the density matrix is in good agreement with the experimental measurement.

We summarize the main points of this Letter: 1) The density matrix is not unique in locating a physical system. To uniquely specify a physical ensemble, one has to include the history of the ensemble. Separability of the density matrix when $`ϵ`$ is small alone does not mean the molecules in the ensemble are untangled. The molecules are entangled only when the ensemble is prepared in a way suggested by the decomposition. 2) Entanglement is a property of an individual particle in an ensemble, not a property of the ensemble as a whole. 3) The evolution of the density matrix in a liquid NMR system is quantum mechanical. 4) The procedures for preparing an effective pure state is only a way to extract the proper signals from the ensemble. The coefficient $`ϵ`$ of the effective pure state does not determine the entanglement property of an ensemble. It is only a measure of the intensity of the signals of the required state. This conclusion has an important practical implication for NMR quantum computation, a small $`ϵ`$ does not change the quantum nature of an NMR quantum computation. One can repeat the quantum computation for sufficient number of times to effectively enhance $`ϵ`$. This will help in scale an NMR quantum computer. One can increase the number of repetition to compensate for the decrease of signals for large qubit numbers. 5) Finally we’d like to stress that power of the quantum computation lie both in the coherence of states(superposed states) and the ability to perform quantum mechanical unitary operation. Entangled state is a special case of the superposed state. During a quantum computation, the quantum register is always in a superposed state, and sometimes it is entangled and sometimes it is unentangled.

To conclude, the present NMR quantum computation is genuinly quantum mechanical, much more than a simulations of a quantum computation. Liquid NMR technique is still a very useful tool in experimental studies of quantum computation.


format: text

text:
# Network robustness and fragility: Percolation on random graphs

\[

## Abstract

Recent work on the internet, social networks, and the power grid has addressed the resilience of these networks to either random or targeted deletion of network nodes. Such deletions include, for example, the failure of internet routers or power transmission lines. Percolation models on random graphs provide a simple representation of this process, but have typically been limited to graphs with Poisson degree distribution at their vertices. Such graphs are quite unlike real world networks, which often possess power-law or other highly skewed degree distributions. In this paper we study percolation on graphs with completely general degree distribution, giving exact solutions for a variety of cases, including site percolation, bond percolation, and models in which occupation probabilities depend on vertex degree. We discuss the application of our theory to the understanding of network resilience.

\]

The internet, airline routes, and electric power grids are all examples of networks whose function relies crucially on the pattern of interconnection between the components of the system. An important property of such connection patterns is their robustness—or lack thereof—to removal of network nodes , which can be modeled as a percolation process on a graph representing the network . Vertices on the graph are considered occupied or not, depending on whether the network nodes they represent (routers, airports, power stations) are functioning normally. Occupation probabilities for different vertices may be uniform, or may depend on, for example, the number of connections they have to other vertices, also called the vertex degree. Then we observe the properties of percolation clusters on the graph, particularly their connectivity, as the function determining occupation probability is varied. Previous results on models of this type  suggest that, if the connection patterns are chosen appropriately, the network can be made highly resilient to random deletion of nodes, although it may be susceptible to an “attack” which specifically targets nodes of high degree. We can also consider bond percolation on graphs as a model of robustness of networks to failure of the links between nodes (e.g., fiber optic lines, power transmission cables, and so forth), or combined site and bond percolation as a model of robustness against failure of either nodes or links.

Percolation models built on networks have also been used to model the spread of disease through communities . In such models a node in the network represents a potential host for the disease, and is occupied if that host is susceptible to the disease. Links between nodes represent contacts capable of transmitting the disease between individuals and may be occupied with some prescribed probability to represent the fraction of such contacts which actually result in transmission. A percolation transition in such a model represents the onset of an epidemic. Similar models can be used to represent the propagation of computer viruses .

The simplest and most widely studied model of undirected networks is the random graph , which has been investigated in depth for several decades now. However, random graphs suffer (at least) one serious shortcoming. As pointed out by a number of authors , vertex degrees have a Poisson distribution in a random graph, but real-life degree distributions are strongly non-Poisson, often taking power-law, truncated power-law, or exponential forms. This has prompted researchers to study the properties of generalized random graphs which have non-Poisson degree distributions .

In this paper we employ the generating function formalism of Newman et al.  to find exact analytic solutions for site percolation on random graphs with any probability distribution of vertex degree, where occupation probability is an arbitrary function of vertex degree. For the special case of constant occupation probability, we also give solutions for bond and joint site/bond percolation. Our results indicate how robust networks should be to random deletion of vertices or edges, or to the preferential deletion of vertices with particular degree.

We start by examining site percolation for the general case in which occupation probability is an arbitrary function of vertex degree. Let $`p_k`$ be the probability that a randomly chosen vertex has degree $`k`$, and $`q_k`$ be the probability that a vertex is occupied given that it has degree $`k`$. Then $`p_kq_k`$ is the probability of having degree $`k`$ and being occupied, and

$$F_0(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_kq_kx^k$$
(1)
is the probability generating function for this distribution . (Generating functions of this form were previously used by Watts  to study cascading failures in networks.) Note that $`F_0(1)=q`$, where $`q`$ is the overall fraction of occupied sites. If we wish to study the special case of uniform occupation probability—ordinary site percolation—we simply set $`q_k=q`$ for all $`k`$.

If we follow a randomly chosen edge, the vertex we reach has degree distribution proportional to $`kp_k`$ rather than just $`p_k`$ because a randomly chosen edge is more likely to lead to a vertex of higher degree. Hence the equivalent of (1) for such a vertex is

$$F_1(x)=\frac{_kkp_kq_kx^{k1}}{_kkp_k}=\frac{F_0^{}(x)}{z},$$
(2)
where $`z`$ is the average vertex degree.

Now let $`H_1(x)`$ be the generating function for the probability that one end of a randomly chosen edge on the graph leads to a percolation cluster of a given number of occupied vertices. The cluster may contain zero vertices if the vertex at the end of the edge in question is unoccupied, which happens with probability $`1F_1(1)`$, or the edge may lead to an occupied vertex with a number $`k`$ of other edges leading out of it, distributed according to $`F_1(x)`$. This means that $`H_1(x)`$ satisfies a self-consistency condition of the form

$$H_1(x)=1F_1(1)+xF_1(H_1(x)).$$
(3)
The probability distribution for the size of the cluster to which a randomly chosen vertex belongs is similarly generated by $`H_0(x)`$, where

$$H_0(x)=1F_0(1)+xF_0(H_1(x)).$$
(4)
Together, Eqs. (14) determine the cluster size distribution for site percolation on a graph of arbitrary degree distribution. From these equations we can determine several quantities of interest such as mean cluster size, position of the percolation threshold, and giant component size, as demonstrated below.

For the special case of uniform (degree-independent) site occupation probability, $`q_k=q`$ for all $`k`$, Eqs. (3) and (4) simplify to

$`H_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1q+qxG_1(H_1(x)),`$ (5)
$`H_0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1q+qxG_0(H_1(x)),`$ (6)
where $`G_0(x)=_kp_kx^k`$ and $`G_1(x)=G_0^{}(x)/z`$ are the generating functions for vertex degree alone introduced in Ref. . For bond percolation with uniform occupation probability, we find that

$$H_0(x)=xG_0(H_1(x)),$$
(7)
with $`H_1(x)`$ given by Eq. (5) again, and for joint site/bond percolation with uniform site and bond occupation probabilities $`q_s`$ and $`q_b`$, we have

$`H_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1q_sq_b+q_sq_bxG_1(H_1(x)),`$ (8)
$`H_0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1q_s+q_sxG_0(H_1(x)),`$ (9)
and indeed Eqs. (57) may be considered special cases of these last two equations when either $`q_s`$ or $`q_b`$ is 1.

We now apply these results to the study of network robustness in a variety of cases. First, we consider the case of uniform site occupation probability embodied in Eqs. (5) and (6), which corresponds to random removal of nodes from a network, for example through failure of routers in a data network, or through random vaccination of a population against a disease.

Typically, no closed-form solution exists for Eq. (5), but it is possible to determine the terms of $`H_1(x)`$ to any finite order $`n`$ by iterating Eq. (5) $`n+1`$ times starting from an initial value of $`H_1=1`$. The probability distribution of cluster sizes can then be calculated exactly by substituting into Eq. (4) and expanding about $`x=0`$. To test this method, we have performed simulations  of site percolation on random graphs with vertex degrees distributed according to the truncated power law

$$p_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }k=0\hfill \\ Ck^\tau \mathrm{e}^{k/\kappa }\hfill & \text{for }k1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Our reasons for choosing this distribution are two-fold. First, it is seen in a number of real-world social networks including collaboration networks of movie actors  and scientists . The pure power-law distributions seen in internet data  are also included in (10) as a special case $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$. Second, the distribution has technical advantages over a pure power-law form because the exponential cutoff regularizes the calculations, so that the generating functions and their derivatives are finite. For pure power-law forms on the other hand, the calculations diverge, indicating that real-world networks cannot take a pure power-law form and must have some cutoff (presumably dependent on the system size).

Figure 1 shows the cluster size distribution from our simulations along with the exact solution for the same values from the generating function formalism. The agreement between the two is good.

The sizes of the clusters correspond, for instance, to the sizes of outbreaks of a disease among groups of susceptible individuals. The parameter values used in Fig. 1 are below the percolation threshold for this particular degree distribution, and hence all outbreaks are small and there is no epidemic behavior. The mean cluster size is

$$s=H_0^{}(1)=q+qG_0^{}(1)H_1^{}(1)=q\left[1+\frac{qG_0^{}(1)}{1qG_1^{}(1)}\right],$$
(11)
which diverges when $`1qG_1^{}(1)=0`$. This point marks the percolation threshold of the system, the point at which a giant component of connected vertices first forms. Thus the critical occupation probability is

$$q_c=\frac{1}{G_1^{}(1)}.$$
(12)
A result equivalent to this one has been derived previously by Cohen et al.  by different means.

In the language of disease propagation $`q_c`$ is the point at which an epidemic of the disease first occurs. In the language of network robustness, it is the point at which the network achieves large scale connectivity, and can therefore function as an effective distribution network. Conversely, if we are approaching the transition from values of $`q`$ above $`q_c`$ it is the point at which a sufficient number of individuals are immune to a disease to prevent it from spreading, or the point at which a large enough number of nodes have been deleted from a distribution network to prevent distribution on large-scales.

The inset of Fig. 1 shows the behavior of the percolation threshold with the cutoff parameter $`\kappa `$ for a variety of values of $`\tau `$. Note that as the values of $`\kappa `$ become large, the percolation threshold becomes small, indicating a high degree of robustness of the network to random deletion of nodes. For $`\tau =2.5`$ (roughly the exponent for the internet data ) and $`\kappa =100`$, the percolation threshold is $`q_c=0.17`$, indicating that one can remove more than 80% of the nodes in the network without destroying the giant component—the network will still possess large-scale connectivity. This result agrees with recent studies of the internet  which indicate that network connectivity should be highly robust against the random removal of nodes.

Another issue that has attracted considerable recent attention is the question of robustness of a network to non-random deletion targeted specifically at nodes with high degree. Albert et al.  and Broder et al.  both looked at the connectivity of a network with power-law distributed vertex degrees as the vertices with highest degree were progressively removed. In the language of our percolation models, this is equivalent to setting

$$q_k=\theta (k_{\mathrm{max}}k),$$
(13)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step-function . This removes (unoccupies) all vertices with degree greater than $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. To investigate the effect of this removal, we calculate the size of the giant component in the network, if there is one. Above the percolation transition the generating function $`H_0(x)`$ gives the distribution of the sizes of clusters of vertices which are not in the giant component , which means that $`H_0(1)`$ is equal to the fraction of the graph which is not occupied by the giant component. The fraction $`S`$ which is occupied by the giant component is therefore given by

$$S=1H_0(1)=F_0(1)F_0(u),$$
(14)
where $`u`$ is a solution of the self-consistency condition

$$u=1F_1(1)+F_1(u).$$
(15)
In cases where this last equation is not exactly solvable we can evaluate $`u`$ by numerical iteration starting from a suitable initial value. In Fig. 2 we show the results for $`S`$ from this calculation for graphs with pure power-law degree distributions as a function of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for a variety of values of $`\tau `$. (The removal of vertices with high degree regularizes the calculation in a similar way to the inclusion of the cutoff $`\kappa `$ in our earlier calculation, so no other cutoff is needed in this case.) On the same plot we also show simulation results for this problem, and once more agreement of theory and simulation is good.

Opinions appear to differ over whether networks such as this are robust or fragile to this selective removal of vertices. Albert et al.  point out that only a small fraction of the highest-degree vertices need be removed to destroy the giant component in the network and hence remove all long-range connectivity. Conversely, Broder et al.  point out that one can remove all vertices with degree greater than $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and still have a giant component even for surprisingly small values of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. As we show in Fig. 2, both viewpoints are correct: they are merely different representations of the same data. In the upper frame of the figure, we plot giant component size as a function of the fraction of vertices removed from the network, and it is clear that the giant component disappears when only a small percentage are removed—just 1% for the case $`\tau =2.7`$—so that the network appears fragile. In the lower frame we show the same data as a function of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the highest remaining degree vertex, and we see that when viewed in this way the network is, in a sense, robust, since $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ must be very small to destroy the giant component completely—just 10 in the case of $`\tau =2.7`$.

To conclude, we have used generating function methods to solve exactly for the behavior of a variety of percolation models on random graphs with any distribution of vertex degrees, including uniform site, bond and site/bond percolation, and percolation in which occupation probability is a function of vertex degree. Percolation systems on graphs such as these have been suggested as models for the robustness of communication or distribution networks to breakdown or sabotage, and for the spread of disease through communities possessing some resistance to infection. Our exact solutions allow us to make predictions about the behavior of such model systems under quite general types of breakdown or interference. Among other results, we find that a distribution network such as the internet, which has an approximately power-law vertex degree distribution, should be highly robust against random removal of nodes (for example, random failure of routers), but is relatively fragile, at least in terms of fraction of nodes removed, to the specific removal of the most highly connected nodes.

The authors would like to thank Jon Kleinberg for illuminating conversations. This work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Army Research Office.


text:
# Quantum Measurement and Entropy Production

## Abstract

We study the time evolution of a quantum system without classical counterpart, undergoing a process of entropy increase due to the environment influence. We show that if the environment-induced decoherence is interpreted in terms of wave-function collapses, a symbolic sequence can be generated. We prove that the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy of this sequence coincides with rate of von Neumann entropy increase.

03.65.Sq,05.20.-y,03.65.Bz

According to Landau and Lifshitz the foundation of the second law might lie in the processes of quantum measurement. This point of view, still under the form of a plausible conjecture, has been recently reformulated by Srivastava, Vitiello and Widom. The authors of this interesting paper note that the von Neumann entropy, which is kept constant by the unitary transformation of quantum mechanics, increases as a consequence of the von Neumann projective measurement, and consequently as an effect of the occurrence of a quantum measurement. Their approach makes manifest the concept of heat and work during the measurement process. In summary, they prove that the von Neumann entropy expressed in terms of the von Neumann projected density matrix, as a consequence of quantum measurement, becomes indistinguishable from the physical entropy.

The present letter focuses on a different aspect of the same fundamental issue. This has to do with the relation between physical entropy and Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS) entropy. This latter form of entropy is actually a property of a classical trajectory. The classical phase space is divided into cells, the cells are labelled with symbols, and a trajectory running in this phase space creates a symbolic sequence. Finally, using the KS entropy prescription this trajectory is assigned the value $`h_{KS}`$ that can be interpreted as a rate of entropy increase. In the recent past many papers have been devoted to the discussion of the possible connection between the KS entropy and the physical entropies . Of special relevance for the discussion of this paper is the work of Latora and Baranger. These authors study the time evolution of the physical entropy moving from an out of equilibrium initial condition and prove that three distinct time regimes exist: An initial regime of transition, an intermediate regime of linear increase and a saturation regime. The rate of entropy increase in the intermediate regime is proved by them to coincide with the KS entropy. Results of the same kind have been derived by Pattanyak along lines that essentially adopt a perspective originally advocated by Zurek and Paz. In a sense, the perspective of Zurek and Paz is the same as the perspective of Refs. if we interpret the influence of the environment as a nature-made form of measurement. However, the main limitation of all these papers is given by the fact that the adopted approach works only when the system studied has a classical counterpart. Thus, the corrrespondence between the original conjecture of Landau and Lifsthiz and physical entropy, on one hand, and physical entropy and KS entropy , on the other hand, is only partially established.

The main purpose of this letter is to fill this gap and to show that the KS entropy shows up even throughout the environment-done measurement process of systems which do not have a classical analog. Let us consider the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian:

$$H=(|12|+|21|)V.$$
(1)
We imagine this system as consisting of two distinct sites, for instance two wells of a lattice coupled to one another by a tunneling process with rate $`\mathrm{}/(2V)`$. The solution corresponding to the initial condition $`|\psi (0)=|1`$ reads

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{cos}(\frac{Vt}{\mathrm{}})|1i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{Vt}{\mathrm{}})|2.$$
(2)
In the presence of the interaction with an environment causing decoherence, with the rate $`2\sigma /\mathrm{}`$, it is convenient to use the statistical density matrix. This physical condition is thus expressed by

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{21}\rho _{12})`$ (3)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{22}\rho _{11}){\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}(t)`$ (4)
$`\dot{\rho }_{22}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{12}\rho _{21})`$ (5)
$`\dot{\rho }_{21}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22}){\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{21}(t).`$ (6)
In this letter we limit our attention to the case:

$$V<<\sigma .$$
(7)
Note that the condition of Eq.(7) makes it possible for us to define the time region where the intermediate regime of KS type is expected to be located. The time $`\tau \mathrm{}/\sigma `$ is evidently the time at which entropy starts increasing. The time evolution of $`\delta (t)\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{22}(t)`$ is easily proven to be equivalent to that of a damped harmonic oscillator with frequency $`2V/\mathrm{}`$ and damping $`2\sigma /\mathrm{}`$. The condition of Eq.(7) sets the overdamping condition, and consequently establishes the time scale $`T_{relax}(\mathrm{}\sigma )/2V^2`$ as the time necessary for the system to reach equilbrium. Consequently, the KS regime is expected to be located in the time region : $`\tau <t<T_{relax}`$. Note that, due to the condition of Eq.(7), $`T_{relax}1/2(\sigma \mathrm{})/(V^2)=1/2(\mathrm{}/\sigma )(\sigma /V)^2>>\mathrm{}/\sigma `$.

The exact system dynamics are described by Eqs. (3), which means 4 coupled differential equations. Using either a perturbation approach or a projection method , both resting on the basic condition of Eq.(7), we reduce the number of coupled differential equations from 4 to 2. The solution is obtained by diagonalizing a two-dimension matrix, whose eigenvalues are:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}exp(\frac{2V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}}).$$
(8)
The time evolution of the von Neumann entropy

$$S(t)=Tr\{\rho (t)\mathrm{log}\rho (t)\},$$
(9)
corresponding to the earlier approximations reads

$$S(t)=[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}exp(\frac{2V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}})]\mathrm{log}[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}exp(\frac{2V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}})]$$
(10)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}exp({\displaystyle \frac{2V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}}})]\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}exp({\displaystyle \frac{2V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}}})].`$

Note that this time evolution has the same initial condition as that of Eq.(2), namely, the system at the initial time is in the state $`|1`$.

The approximated time evolution of $`S(t)`$ given by Eq.(10) corresponds to setting equal to $`0`$ the finite size of the transition region. To establish the slope of the the regime of entropy increasing linearly in time, we have to consider a time scale of the order of $`\tau `$, namely $`V^2t/(\sigma \mathrm{})=(V/\sigma )<<1`$ thereby making it possible for us to replace Eq.(10) with the following approximated expression

$$S(t)\frac{V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}}+\frac{V^2t}{\sigma \mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}(\frac{\sigma ^2}{V^2}).$$
(11)
Consequently, we obtain that a good candidate for the quantum KS entropy is given by

$$\dot{S}(t)=\frac{V^2}{\sigma \mathrm{}}[1+\mathrm{log}(\frac{\sigma ^2}{V^2})].$$
(12)
To prove that this is really a KS entropy we decide to adopt the following perspective. Following the authors of Refs. we interpret the decoherence process as a true wave-function collapse occurring with the rate $`\sigma /\mathrm{}`$. We can adopt the following prescription. We imagine that a measurement process takes place at regular intervals of time: $`\tau ,2\tau ,\mathrm{},n\tau \mathrm{}`$, where, in accordance with the earlier definition, $`\tau =\mathrm{}/\sigma `$. At the moment of the first wave-function collapse, the system, which in the absence of the measurement process would follow Eq. (2), jumps to the state $`|2`$ with probability $`x|sin(V\tau /\mathrm{})|^2`$ and to the state $`|1`$ with probability $`1x=|cos(V\tau /\mathrm{})|^2`$. Due to the fact that we adopt the condition of Eq.(7) we set

$$x=(\frac{V}{\sigma })^2.$$
(13)
Since $`x<<1`$, at the first step the system will jump with a very large probability into the state $`|1`$. At the next step the probability of jumping into the same state is the same as at the first step, and so on. Consequently, the system will collapse for a large number of times into the state $`|1`$. However, since the probability of collapsing into the state $`|2`$ is small but non vanishing, sooner or later the system will collapse into that state, and, afterward it will keep collapsing into that state for a large number of times. In literature this effect is called $`Zeno`$ effect. If we associate the state $`|1`$ with $`1`$ and the state $`|2`$ with $`0`$, this will have the effect of creating a symbolic sequence of $`1`$’s and $`0`$’s.

Let us calculate the KS entropy of this symbolic sequence. According to the literature prescriptions to evaluate the KS entropy , we have to proceed as follows: We fix a window of size $`N`$, namely, containing $`N`$ symbols of this sequence, and we move the window along the sequence, recording the combinations of symbols $`\omega _0,\omega _1,\mathrm{}\omega _{N1}`$, with $`\omega _i=0,1`$, corresponding to any window position. Since the sequence is assumed to be infinite, we can evaluate the frequency of occurence of any given string and we can identify this frequency with the probability $`p(\omega _0,\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1})`$. The KS entropy is defined as

$$h_{KS}lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{H(N)}{N},$$
(14)
where $`H(N)`$ is the Shannon entropy:

$$H(N)\underset{\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1}}{}p(\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1})\mathrm{log}p(\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{N1}).$$
(15)
To make our calculation easier, let us imagine a case where the probability of getting $`|1`$, 1-$`x`$, and the probability of getting $`|2`$, are fixed. This produces a sequence with long strings of 1’s interspersed with very few 0’s. This is the former of the two kinds of sequences that we want to discuss here. The Zeno effect results in a different kind of sequence, the latter of the two here under discussion. In fact, if a collapse into $`|2`$ occurs, it is easily seen that since that moment the quantity $`x`$ becomes the probability for the wave function to collapse into $`|1`$ and 1 - $`x`$ becomes the probability for the wave function to collapse into $`|2`$. In other words, the latter sequence, corresponding to the realization of the Zeno effect, is obtained from the former by changing the 1’s of the second, fourth, sixth string, and so on, into 0’s, and by ignoring the 0’s at the border between a given long string and the next long string.

We prove that the KS entropy of the former sequence is the same as the KS entropy of the latter. The evaluation of the KS entropy of the former sequence is done noticing that at the first step there is a probability $`x`$ of getting $`0`$ and a probability $`(1x)`$ of getting $`1`$. At the second step there are four possibilities, the string $`00`$, with probability $`x^2`$, the string $`11`$, with probability $`(1x)^2`$ , and the strings $`01`$ and $`10`$, both with the same probability $`x(1x)`$. In general at the $`Nth`$ step there will be $`2^N`$ different strings, with probability

$$p_k^{(N)}=x^k(1x)^{Nk}k=0,\mathrm{},N.$$
(16)
As a consequence, we can write:

$$H(N)=\underset{0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{N!}{k!(Nk)!}x^k(1x)^{Nk}\mathrm{log}x^k(1x)^{Nk}.$$
(17)
After some algebra, Eq.(17) is proven to be proportional to $`N`$ through such a factor that the adoption of Eq.(14) yields

$$h_{KS}=x\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{x})+(1x)\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{1x}).$$
(18)
It is interesting to notice that this result coincides with that of Dorfman, Ernst and Jacobs who studied the asymmetric Bernouilli map given by

$`y_{n+1}=y_n/(1x)\mathrm{for}0y_n<x`$ (19)
$`y_{n+1}=(y_nx)/x\mathrm{for}xy_n<1.`$ (20)
These authors evaluated the Lyapunov coefficient of this map and found it to be equal to the KS entropy of Eq.(18). In fact, we know from the the Pesin theorem that the KS entropy of a chaotic map is its Lyapounov coefficient.

To prove that the theoretical prediction of Eq.(18) is really equivalent to the KS entropy of a Zeno effect, we create a symbolic sequence by randomly drawing a number of the interval $`[0,1]`$. The drawing is done at the integer times: n=1,2,… If this number is smaller than the number $`x<<1`$, we select 0, if it is larger we select 1. The probability of selecting $`1`$ is $`1x`$, and consequently it is much larger than the probability of selecting $`0`$. As small as the probability of $`0`$ is, if we get $`0`$, we reverse the procedure, and we associate the numbers larger than $`x`$ with $`0`$, and those smaller than $`x`$ with $`1`$. Proceeding along these lines we find the sequence illustrated in Fig. 1. The KS entropy of this sequence is then evaluated numerically using the prescription of Eq.(15). For windows of size $`N<20`$ this can be easily done. The result is illustrated in Fig. 2, for $`x=0.05`$. We see that the agreement between the theoretical prediction of Eq.(18) and the numerical result is excellent. We can thus conclude that the asymmetric map of Dorfman, Ernst and Jacobs is a dynamic system statistically equivalent to the Zeno effect.

Note that to make complete the connection with the quantum measurement process, we have to move from the unit time picture adopted to derive Eq.(18) to a picture expressed in terms of physical time. To do that we have to notice that in the physical process under study the elementary time step is, as we have seen, $`\tau =\mathrm{}/\sigma `$. We replace $`x=(V/\sigma )^2`$ into Eq.(18), make the approximation $`\mathrm{log}(1x)x`$ and multiply the result by $`\sigma /\mathrm{}`$. The result is:

$$h_{KS}=\frac{V^2}{\sigma \mathrm{}}[1+\mathrm{log}(\frac{\sigma ^2}{V^2})],$$
(21)
which coincides with Eq.(12), which is the rate of the physical entropy in the time regime that the earlier theoretical arguments have identified with the quantum KS regime.

In addition to the benefit, of merely conceptual interest, of extending the correspondence between the physical entropy and the KS entropy also to cases with no classical counterpart, the results of this letter, as simple as they are, makes it possible to derive the results about fluorescence spectra in a single-atom double-resonance experiment using methods borrowed from the literature on intermittent processes. In fact, when the condition $`x<<1`$ applies, the left hand part of the asymmetric map of Eq.(16) becomes equivalent to the continuous time equation

$$\dot{y}=[x/(1x)]y(t)$$
(22)
ranging from $`y=0`$ to $`y=1`$. Note that Eq.(22) applies to the whole interval  but the point y = 1. Thus the point y = 1 and the remainder part of the interval  play the same role as the chaotic region and the laminar region of the intermittent map of Ref. , respectively. As done in Ref. , we assume that the injection of the trajectory back into the laminar region is uniform. Thus, using Eq.(22) and adopting the same approach as that of Ref. , we evaluate the distribution of sojourn times, $`\psi (t)`$. This is:

$$\psi (t)=exp([x/(1x)]t).$$
(23)
On the other hand, we know that the second-order time derivative of the correlation function of the telegraphic noise $`C(t)`$ is proportional to the waiting time distribution $`\psi (t)`$. From Eq.(23) we immediately derive,in a full agreement with the theory of Ref., that also this function is exponential.

This paper rests on a perspective which might depart from that of the KS entropy. Here we are imagining that a genuine random process is acting at regular intervals of time, $`n`$. The ”time” $`n`$ is a sort of internal time, and the physical entropy is expected to increase linearly with it. The observation time T is easily related to the internal time through $`n=\mathrm{T}/\mathrm{t}`$, where $`\mathrm{t}`$ denotes the mean time of sojourn in the laminar region. This perspective might lead to a departure from the KS entropy in the cases where $`\psi (t)`$ is the inverse power law:

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi (t)=\frac{const}{t^\mu },\mathrm{with}\mu >1.$$
(24)
We know that this inverse power law asymptotic behavior can be obtained with a slow modulation of the rate $`x`$. In the case where $`2<\mu <3`$ one would expect that an ordinary KS entropy emerges. However, the adoption of the KS perspective seems to imply an average of the fluctuating probability $`x/(1x)`$. This paper suggests that the rate of increase of the physical entropy is proportional to T/$`t`$. This implies that we have to make the average of $`(1x)/x`$ rather than that of $`x/(1x)`$. We think that all this might raise interesting new questions on the meaning of the KS entropy.


text:
# Can we really rule out the existence of antistars?

## 1 Introduction

During last decades, high–energy astrophysics has dramatically changed, with the discovery of powerful gamma–ray sources. Gamma–ray bursts (GRB) represent one of the most fascinating mysteries of the nature. Since their accidental discovery, in the late 1960s (Klebesadel et al. ), they puzzled astrophysicists both for their enormous amount of energy released (about $`10^{51}10^{54}`$ erg in a few seconds) and for their “inner engine”, hidden from direct observations. This started soon a plethora of theories, involving supernovae, neutron stars, antimatter effects, black holes, and more and more exotic options (for a review see Piran , , Rees ).

GRB are not the only source in the universe with large energy release; for example, another exciting mystery is represented by active galactic nuclei (AGN). They are found to produce much more luminosity than a typical galaxy, even $`10^4`$ times, in a tiny volume, less than 1 pc3 (for a review, Krolik ).

It is worth noting that the energy release is too large to be due to nuclear reactions and, if we want to avoid introducing new physics, we can use only two sources of energy: gravitation and matter–antimatter annihilation. Actual theories consider gravitation as the main mechanism driving these high–energy astrophysical sources, while matter–antimatter annihilation has been neglected mainly because we have not detected macroscopic bodies made of antimatter in the Solar System and its neighbourhood. Moreover, a well detailed review by Steigman () showed that there is no experimental evidence of the existence of large amount of antimatter in the universe. But according to Steigman himself: “On the other hand, failure to construct consistent, symmetric cosmologies may indicate either a lack of antimatter or a lack of imagination”.

Indeed, although experimental particle physics has showed the symmetry between particles and antiparticles – the creation of matter must occurs simultaneously with the creation of antimatter –, it can be unsatisfactory that current cosmologies consider a universe made of matter only. First attempts to construct a symmetric cosmology were done by Klein and Alfvén during fifties and sixties (see Alfvén ). Later on, this argument was widely debated – literature includes diametrically opposed points of view –, but there are no sufficient data to select among several theories (Cohen et al. ). It is quite difficult to show the existence of antimatter in the universe, but it is also difficult to show why we have a universe made of matter only (Stecker ).

The recent developments of astrophysical technologies allowed the discovery of several gamma–ray sources and it is time to ask ourselves if new discoveries and measurements can overcome past objections to antimatter theories.

Among various theories, Alfvén () proposed an annihilation model for the energy source of quasi–stellar objects. It is a detailed paper and we refer the reader to it, but there are some features that Alfvén did not take into account and here we would like to examine them, in order to extend, improve, and update the Alfvèn theory. Particularly, in this paper we investigate some ideas about the close encounter of stars and antistars in order to search possible signatures of antimatter. The notes exposed here do *not* want to propose a “universal” theory for astrophysical gamma–rays sources. However, *some* (not all) gamma sources might be due to the close encounter of stars and antistars and related phenomena.

## 2 Matter or antimatter, that is the problem

The main source of information about cosmic bodies is the electromagnetic radiation they emit. However, photons are not subjected to CPT symmetry. The interaction of antimatter with magnetic fields is different from the interaction of matter, but the effects (Zeeman; Faraday rotation) depend also on the sign of the magnetic field, and therefore we cannot get any conclusions on the kind of matter.

The best way to show the evidence of an antistar is surely the detection of antinuclei with $`Z>2`$. This was the purpose of the *Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer* (AMS), that was flown on the space shuttle in June 1998: first results indicate no antihelium flux and pose an upper limit on the ratio of antihelium to helium (Alcaraz et al. ). Best results should be available with a second experiment, that will have a sensitivity in antihelium search of $`10^9`$.

Another method was suggested by Cramer and Braithwaite (). They noted that the polarization of photons generated in fusion processes of stars is different according to that there is matter or antimatter. While stars of matter emit right–circularly polarized photons, antistars emit photon which are left–circularly polarized.

Another way is to detect the products of annihilation: neutrinos, $`\gamma `$–rays, and relativistic electron–positron pairs. A typical decay scheme for nucleon–antinucleon annihilation is (Steigman ):

$$N+\overline{N}\{\begin{array}{cc}\pi ^0\gamma +\gamma \hfill & \\ \pi ^\pm \mu ^\pm +\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu _\mu })\hfill & \end{array}$$

and:

$$\mu ^\pm e^\pm +\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu _\mu })+\nu _e(\overline{\nu _e})$$

The spectra are in the range from several tens to several hundreds of MeV, and with a peak around 100 MeV and a median energy around 250–300 MeV.

This is the most frequent annihilation process for free nucleons. The generation of “protonium” (something similar to positronium, but with protons and antiprotons) with following annihilation, has a rate that is about $`10^5`$ times smaller than the process described above. Direct annihilation (that is $`p+\overline{p}\gamma +\gamma `$) is quite rare, with a rate about $`10^7`$ times smaller (Steigman ).

The annihilation of electrons and positrons gave two photons with energy of 511 keV. Under certain environmental conditions, specifically with gas temperature lower than about $`510^5`$ K (Guessoum et al. ), positronium can take place by mean of radiative recombination. After some fraction of seconds, the particle and the antiparticle annihilate with the production of two or three photons, according to the state: two photons for the singlet and three photons for the triplet. In this case, the spectrum presents a continuum spectrum in the low energy side of the 511 keV line. If the gas temperature is higher than $`510^5`$ K, the annihilation takes place directly without the formation of positronium; therefore we have only the 0.511 MeV line.

For example, OSSE observations of both galactic 511 keV line emission and the three photon continuum components of the electron–positron annihilation radiation showed the presence of a galactic region with positronium (Kinzer et al. , Purcell et al. ). Therefore, the gas temperature in the galactic centre is lower than $`510^5`$ K.

About half of the energy released in annihilation is carried away by neutrinos, and some authors proposed to search there signatures for antimatter (see Steigman , Barnes et al. ). However, it is well known how difficult is to detect netutrinos.

Actually there are still large uncertainties in measurements: the INTEGRAL satellite, for example, that will be launched on April 2002, will provide for the first time fine gamma–ray spectroscopy. In this situation, there are still several questions without answers of reasonable certainty and the antimatter in the universe cannot be completely ruled out. So we can speculate about possible signatures of its presence.

## 3 Evaporation and ejection from a cluster

Khlopov () showed that it is possible that there were isolated domains of antimatter, but they should be larger than a globular cluster. Antistars can escape from an anticluster in two ways (Binney and Tremaine ): ejection, that is the antistar gains the escape speed by a single close encounter with another antistar in the cluster; evaporation, that is a gradual increase of the speed from several distant encounters. The first case is negligible, when compared to the second one, but the rate of evaporation is more complicated to calculate. A crude estimation is given in Binney and Tremaine (), that put $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}100t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$, where $`t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ is the mean relaxation time. This means that during a time $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ a significant fraction of stars leave the cluster. For typical globular cluster $`t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ is in the range between $`310^7`$ to $`210^{10}`$ years (Meylan and Heggie ).

Globular clusters date back to the formation of galaxies and they are located within a large roughly spherical halo around galaxies. As known, if there were isolated domains of antimatter, they could have survived in globular clusters (Khlopov ). If a cluster of antistars survived near a galaxy of matter, then it is possible that an antistar evaporates from the cluster and goes into the galaxy, causing the annihilation and gamma–ray emission. The tidal forces of the galaxy can increase the evaporation rate and once in the galactic nucleus, there is a high probability of binary formation by tidal capture and stellar merging or collision (Lee and Ostriker ).

Under these conditions, a fraction of close encounters could be between stars and antistars. This value depends on the mass fraction of antimatter domains relative to the total baryon mass, which in turn is strongly model dependent. For the sake of the simplicity, let us suppose that, at least, one globular cluster near a galaxy was made of antimatter. We consider a mean total number of globular cluster for each galaxy of about $`210^2`$. In addition, we have to evaluate the rate of evaporation through escaping stars, that in its simplest form can be written as (Binney and Tremaine ):

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{N}{t_{\mathrm{ev}}}$$
(1)
If we assume $`N=10^6`$ and consider a time interval of one year, we obtain, in the best case, that $`N310^4`$ star for each year and for each cluster. The rate of evaporation of an antistar from an anticluster is then $`1.510^6`$ yr-1. We remind that we assumed that at least one globular cluster near a galaxy was made of antimatter.

It is worth noting that the rate of escape from a cluster is a function of star mass (see Meylan and Heggie ) and values obtained here are strongly dependent on simplifying assumptions. Numerical models are required to give better results; here we want only to give a rough evaluation.

The next step is then to study what happens during the close encounter of a star and an antistar.

## 4 Close encounters

Close encounters can lead to tidal capture and, in certain cases, also to collisions and merging. These processes are driven by gravity and therefore there is no difference when we are dealing with stars or antistars.

Let us consider the mass transfer in a binary system of a star and an antistar, which involves the accretion power. The standard model explains the radiation emission by using the gravitation as a source of energy: the kinetic energy of the infalling matter is converted into radiation. There are two ways to do the mass transfer: stellar wind or accretion disk due to Roche–lobe overflow (see Frank et al. ). When antimatter is present, we have additional energy release from annihilation.

The main effect of this additional energy is to change the Eddington luminosity, that is found by balancing the inward gravitational force and the outward radiation pressure, deriving from the conversion of kinetic energy and from annihilation. The standard formula of Eddington luminosity is:

$$L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\frac{4\pi GMm_\mathrm{p}c}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}1.310^{38}\frac{M}{M_{}}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is the gravitation constant, $`M`$ is the mass of the accreting star, $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the mass of the proton, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thompson cross section:

$$\sigma _\mathrm{T}=\frac{8\pi }{3}r_\mathrm{e}^2$$
(3)
with $`r_\mathrm{e}`$ the electromagnetic radius of the electron.

For luminosities greater than $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ the radiation pressure stops the accretion process, because it exceeds the inward gravitational force.

When dealing with accretion processes between a star and an antistar, the radiation pressure becomes very important. Photons produced by annihilation of electron–positron pairs have energy of 511 keV, that is the upper limit of validity of the Thompson cross section. Annihilation of heavier particles produce photons with energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ greater than $`m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$, as seen in the above section. Therefore, we must use proper quantum relativistic cross section, that is given by Klein–Nishina formula (see, for example, Longair ):

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{KN}}=\frac{\pi r_\mathrm{e}^2}{ϵ}\left\{\mathrm{ln}(2ϵ+1)\left[1\frac{2(ϵ+1)}{ϵ^2}\right]+\frac{ϵ+8}{2ϵ}\frac{1}{2(2ϵ+1)^2}\right\}$$
(4)
where $`ϵ=\mathrm{}\omega /m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$. Therefore, in Eq. (2), the Thompson cross section must be replaced by Klein–Nishina formula, while all other quantities remain unchanged. When $`ϵ>>1`$, in the ultrarelativistic case, Eq. (4) becomes:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{KN}}=\frac{\pi r_\mathrm{e}^2}{ϵ}(\mathrm{ln}2ϵ+\frac{1}{2})$$
(5)
For photons produced in proton–antiproton annihilation, we have $`ϵ391`$ (for 200 MeV photon), which results in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{KN}}4.610^{31}`$ m2. Therefore, the Eddington limit of matter–antimatter case:

$$L_{\mathrm{am}}210^{40}\frac{M}{M_{}}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}$$
(6)
Eq. (6) shows that in the case of accretion power from a close encounter of a star and an antistar, the balance of radiation pressure and gravitational force occurs at higher luminosities, owing to smaller cross section for high–energy photons produced by annihilation of protons and antiprotons. The new limit can be higher when we deal with direct annihilation $`(p+\overline{p}\gamma +\gamma )`$ or with heavier nuclei. For example, the direct annihilation of helium leads to:

$$L_{\mathrm{am}}2.510^{41}\frac{M}{M_{}}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}$$
(7)
When photon energy is greater than $`2m_ec^2`$, pair production can take place in the field of a nucleus. The pair production is not possible in free space, because of the conservation of momentum and energy. In matter and antimatter environment, nuclei annihilate among themselves, and therefore they cannot help in the pair production.

However, the role of the nucleus in balancing energy and momentum, can be replaced by another photon with lower energy. The electron–positron pair can be created in a head–on collision of a photon with energy $`ϵ_1`$ with another photon with lower energy (see Longair ):

$$ϵ_2\frac{m_e^2c^4}{ϵ_1}$$
(8)
For 300 MeV photons, it is necessary to have 1 keV photons, which are present in accretion processes; therefore 300 MeV photons can be absorbed from the environment. Higher–energy photons require a lower energy photons, up to the Microwave Background Radiation for photons of $`410^{14}`$ eV.

It is worth noting that also the decay of $`\mu ^\pm `$ create electron–positron pairs. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the stars and emit syncrotron radiation (Alfvén ). The energy released cannot be larger than $`m_ec^2/3`$ and the frequency spectrum depends on the geometry and the intensity of the magnetic field. Moreover, $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs can eventually generate X–rays by inverse Compton scattering of startlight (Carlqvist and Laurent ).

## 5 Collisions and merging

As the annihilation is a surface process (a few mean free paths thick), the release of energy due to annihilation is not large enough to affect the kinematics of the collision (Alfvén ). Massive stars can collide and release energy of surface annihilation in a few seconds, as a gamma–ray burst.

One of the first theory invoked to explain the origin of cosmic gamma–ray bursts was the collision of asteroids and comets of antimatter with stars of matter (Sofia and Van Horn , Sofia and Wilson ). Here we propose another version of that theory, specifically the collision of a star and an antistar.

There are already some theories that explain gamma–ray emission from merging of massive stars (Eichler et al. , Narayan et al. ), but they have an upper limit in the energy released (up to $`10^{53}`$ erg) and they have to use beaming effects, or other, in order to explain higher values for energy.

In the case of collision of a star with an antistar, the energy released derives from annihilation. Therefore, it depends simply on the total amount of matter and antimatter, does not need of any particular effects, and has virtually no upper limit.

A crude estimation of an order of magnitude shows that the total mass (of matter and antimatter) required to generate a GRB of $`E=10^{54}`$ erg is:

$$m_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{E}{c^2}1.110^{33}\mathrm{g}$$
(9)
that is equal to about $`0.56`$ solar masses; $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum. The collision time is of the order of some milliseconds and this can be compatible with very short GRB (see Cline et al. , Krennrich et al. ).

Once the merging is occurred, then the new star has a particular behaviour, because of the mixing of matter and antimatter. Such a star has already been studied, even though with no reference to such a case, by Unno and Fujimoto (). They found that a very massive star ($`10^7`$ solar masses or higher) made of matter and antimatter can release $`10^{61}`$ erg of energy in $`10^510^6`$ yr, with a luminosity of $`10^{47}`$ erg/s. These data are comparable with that of QSO.

The existence of a correlation between QSO and GRB was already invoked by Sillanpää () and Schartel et al. (). In our case, the correlation can be explained so that the GRB is the “first light” of a future QSO, even though it is still unknown how this type of system can evolve.

## 6 Some examples

Steigman () wrote his paper in 1976. Later on, Allen () analysed again the constraints on annihilation in active galaxies and used more recent data (in 1981). Today we have even more recent data, so we can do another evaluation of order of magnitudes.

In his calculations for photon flux above 100 MeV, Steigman () noted that for every erg of energy going in electron-positron pairs, there are roughly $`10^4`$ photons with energy above 100 MeV. Steigman found a relationship between the observed flux and the gamma–ray flux:

$$S_\gamma [\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1]10^4S_{obs}[\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1]$$
(10)
Allen () noted that it is better to use as reference the flux at radio frequencies, because non thermal optical emission need not to be synchrotron radiation (we remind that an annihilation source is also a strong synchrotron source; see Sect. 4). Therefore, Eq. (10) should be changed in the more suitable:

$$S_\gamma [\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1]10^4S_{radio}[\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1]$$
(11)
We can therefore set up a new table of selected strong radio sources, calculate the expected gamma–ray flux above 100 MeV, and compare with data available in literature (see Tab. 1).

It is possible to see that more recent data show some cases of interest (Cen A, Cyg A, M87), but it is worth noting that these sources must be studied and observed with greatest details before to claim that they are powered by matter–antimatter annihilation. However, these calculation show that recent data renew the annihilation hypotesis as inner engine for certain sources. Perhaps future $`\gamma `$–ray astrophysics satellites can give more reliable constraints, allowing a precise choice.

## 7 Conclusions

Although the existence of stars made of antimatter is still doubtful, we can search for other signatures of the presence of antimatter in the universe. This paper showed that the Eddington luminosity in the presence of an antistar can be substantially higher. The high–energy photons created by annihilation of nuclei have a small cross section for their interaction with electrons and then the effect of radiation pressure in balancing the gravitational force is smaller than in standard conditions.

However, a source with luminosity higher than the standard Eddington limit is not sufficient to claim for the presence of antimatter. It is necessary to detect several other features, such as a strong synchrotron radiation, neutrinos, and high–energy photons. We have shown that more recent data have, for some sources, a good agreement with the calculated flux from annihilation.

These results must be taken *cum grano salis* and more results are expected from the new generation of gamma–ray astrophysics satellites. It is *not* possible to claim for the discovery of large amount of antimatter in the universe, but it is time to renew this type of research.

## 8 Acknowledgements

Although they have no responsibilities in this “crazy paper”, I wish to thank Guido Di Cocco, Elena Pian, Diego Casadei, and Massimo Cappi for useful discussions. This research has made use of *NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service*.