text:
# The information-theoretical viewpoint on the physical complexity of classical and quantum objects and their dynamical evolution

## I Introduction: the shallowness of random objects

Despite denoting it with the term *”complexity”*, Andreǐ Nikolaevich Kolmogorov Kolmogorov-65 , Kolmogorov-69 , Kolmogorov-83a , Kolmogorov-83b , AMS-LMS-00  introduced the notion denoted nowadays by the school of Paul Vitanyi Li-Vitanyi-97  as *”plain-Kolmogorov-complexity”* (that I will denote with the letter K from here and beyond) in order of obtaining an intrinsic measure of the *amount of information* of that object and not as a measure of the *amount of physical-complexity* of that object.

That the *amount of information* and the *amount of physical complexity* of an object are two completely different concepts became further clear after the introduction by Gregory Joseph Chaitin of the notion denoted nowadays by the school of Paul Vitanyi Li-Vitanyi-97  as *”prefix-Kolmogorov-complexity”* and denoted by the school of Chaitin and Cristian S. Calude simply as *algorithmic information* Calude-02  (and that I will denote with the letter I from here and beyond) and the induced notion of *algorithmic-randomness*:

an algorithmically random object has a very high algorithmic information but is certainly not physically-complex.

Such a simple consideration is indeed sufficient to infer that *algorithmic information* can be seen in no way as a measure of physical complexity.

A natural measure of physical complexity within the framework of Algorithmic Information Theory, the *logical depth*, was later introduced by Gregory Chaitin and Charles Bennett Bennett-88 , constituting what is nowadays generally considered as the *algorithmic information theoretic viewpoint* as to physical complexity, though some author can still be found who not only ignores that, as it was clearly realized by Brudno himself Brudno-78 , Brudno-83 , Segre-02 , the *chaoticity* of a dynamical system (defined as the strict positivity of its Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy) is equivalent to its *weak algorithmic chaoticity* (defined as the condition that almost all the trajectories, symbolically codified, are *Brudno-algorithmically random*) but is weaker than its *strong algorithmic chaoticity* (defined as the condition that almost all the trajectories, symbolically codified, are *Martin-Löf-Solovay-Chaitin-algorithmically random*), but uses the notions of *chaoticity* and *complexity* as if they were synonymous, a thing obviously false since, as we have seen, the (weak) algorithmic randomness of almost all the trajectories of a chaotic dynamical system implies exactly the opposite, namely that its trajectories are not *complex* at all.

Indeed it is natural to define *complex* a dynamical system such that almost all its trajectories, symbolically codified, are *logical deep*.

So, despite the the still common fashion to adopt the terms ”*chaoticity*” and ”*complexity*” as synomymous, one has that that every chaotical dynamical system is shallow, as I will show in sectionII and sectionIII.

The key point of such an issue is so important to deserve a further repetition with the own words of Charles Bennett Bennett-88  illustrating the physical meaning of the notion of *logical depth* and the reason why it is a good measure of physical complexity:

”The notion of logical-depth developed in the present paper was first described in Chaitin-77 , and at greater length in Bennett-82  and Bennett-85 ; similar notions have been independently introduced by Adleman-79  (”potential”), Levin-Vjugin-77  (”incomplete sequence”), Levin-84  (”hitting time”) and Koppel, this volume (”sophistication”). See also Wolfram’s work on ”computational irreducibility” Wolfram-85  and Hartmanis’ work on time- and space-bounded algorithmic information Hartmanis-83

”We propose depth as a formal measure of value. From the earliest days of information theory it has been appreciated that information per se is not a good measure of message value. For example a typical sequence of coin tosses has high information content but little value; an ephemeresis, giving the positions of the moon and planets every day for a hundred years, has no more information than the equations of motions and initial conditions from which it was calculated, but saves its owner the effort of recalculating these positions. The value of a message thus appears to reside not in its information (its absolutely unpredictable parts), nor in its obvious redudancy (verbatim repetitions, unequal digit frequencies), but rather in what might be called its buried redudancy - parts predictable only with difficulty, things the receiver could in principle have figured out without being told, but only at considerable cost in money, time or computation. In other words the value of a message is the amount of mathematical or other work plausibly done by its originator, which its receiver is saved from having to repeat”

The quantum analogue of such a notion, i.e. *quantum logical depth*, is introduced in sectionIV.

The definition of the physical complexity of a quantum dynamical system is then introduced in sectionV where it is shown that in the quantum case, as in the classical case, a physically complex dynamical system is not chaotic.

## II The definition of the physical complexity of strings and sequences of cbits

I will follow from here and beyond the notation of my Phd-thesis Segre-02 ; consequentially, given the binary alphabet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$, I will denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the set of all the strings on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (i.e. the set of all the strings of cbits), by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ the set of all the sequences on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (i.e. the set of all the sequences of cbits) and by $`CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ its subset consisting of all the Martin-Löf-Solovay-Chaitin random sequences of cbits.

I will furthermore denote strings by an upper arrow and sequences by an upper bar, so that I will talk about the string $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and the sequence $`\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$; $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ will denote the length of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`x_n`$ will denote the $`n^{th}`$-digit of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ or of the sequence $`\overline{x}`$ while $`\stackrel{}{x}_n`$ will denote its prefix of length n.

I will, finally, denote by $`<_l`$ the lexicographical-ordering relation over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and by string(n) the $`n^{th}`$ string in such an ordering.

Fixed once and for all a universal Chaitin computer U, let us recall the following basic notions:

given a string $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and a natural number $`n`$:

###### Definition II.1

*canonical program of $`\stackrel{}{x}`$*:

$$\stackrel{}{x}^{}:=\underset{<_l}{\mathrm{min}}\{\stackrel{}{y}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:U(\stackrel{}{y})=\stackrel{}{x}\}$$
(1)
###### Definition II.2

*$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is n-compressible*:

$$|\stackrel{}{x}^{}||\stackrel{}{x}|n$$
(2)
###### Definition II.3

*$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is n-incompressible*:

$$|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|>|\stackrel{}{x}|n$$
(3)
###### Definition II.4

*halting time of the computation with input $`\stackrel{}{x}`$*:

$$T(\stackrel{}{x}):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{number of computational steps after which U halts on input }\stackrel{}{x}\text{ },\hfill & \text{if }U(\stackrel{}{x})=\hfill \\ +\mathrm{},\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
We have at last all the ingredients required to introduce the notion of *logical depth* as to strings.

Given a string $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and two natural number $`s,t`$:

###### Definition II.5

*logical depth of $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at significance level s*:

$$D_s(\stackrel{}{x}):=\mathrm{min}\{T(\stackrel{}{y}):U(\stackrel{}{y})=\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}\text{ s-incompressible }\}$$
(5)
###### Definition II.6

*$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is t-deep at significance level s*:

$$D_s(\stackrel{}{x})>t$$
(6)
###### Definition II.7

*$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is t-shallow at significance level s*:

$$D_s(\stackrel{}{x})t$$
(7)
I will denote the set of all the t-deep strings as $`tDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ and the set of all the t-shallow strings as $`tSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ .

Exactly as it is impossible to give a sharp distinction among *Chaitin-random* and *regular* strings while it is possible to give a sharp distinction among *Martin-Löf-Solovay-Chaitin-random* and *regular* sequences, it is impossible to give a sharp distinction among *deep* and *shallow* strings while it is possible to give a sharp distinction among *deep* and *shallow* sequences.

Given a sequence $`\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$:

###### Definition II.8

*$`\overline{x}`$ is strongly deep*:

$$card\{n:D_s(\stackrel{}{x}(n))>f(n)\}<\mathrm{}_0s,fRECMAP(,)$$
(8)
where, following once more the notation adopted in Segre-02 , $`RECMAP(,)`$ denotes the set of all the (total) recursive functions over $``$.

To introduce a weaker notion of depth it is necessary to fix the notation as to reducibilities and degrees:

denoted the *Turing reducibility* by $`_T`$ and the polynomial time Turing reducibility by $`_T^P`$ Odifreddi-89  let us recall that there is an intermediate constrained-reducibility among them: the one, called *recursive time bound reducibility*, in which the halting-time is constrained to be not necessarily a polynomial but a generic recursive function; since *recursive time bound reducibility* may be proved to be equivalent to *truth-table reducibility* (I demand to Odifreddi-99a ,Calude-02  for its definition and for the proof of the equivalence) I will denote it by $`_{tt}`$.

A celebrated theorem proved by Peter Gacs in 1986 Gacs-86  states that every sequence is computable by a Martin Löf-Solovay-Chaitin-random sequence:

###### Theorem II.1

*Gacs’ Theorem*:

$$\overline{x}_T\overline{y}\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}},\overline{y}CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(9)
This is no more true, anyway, if one adds the constraint of recursive time bound, leading to the following:

###### Definition II.9

*$`\overline{x}`$ is weakly deep*:

$$\overline{y}CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}):\neg (\overline{x}_{tt}\overline{y})$$
(10)
I will denote the set of all the strongly-deep binary sequences by $`STRONGLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ and the set of all the weakly-deep binary sequences as $`WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$.

Shallowness is then once more defined as the opposite of depth:

###### Definition II.10

*strongly-shallow sequences of cbits*:

$$STRONGLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}):=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(STRONGLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}))$$
(11)
###### Definition II.11

*weakly-shallow sequences of cbits*:

$$WEAKLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}):=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}))$$
(12)
Weakly-shallow sequences of cbits may also be characterized in the following useful way Bennett-88 :

###### Theorem II.2

*Alternative characterization of weakly-shallow sequences of cbits*:

$$\overline{x}WEAKLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})\mu recursive:\overline{x}\mu RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(13)
where, following once more the notation of Segre-02 , $`\mu RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ denotes the set of all the Martin-Löf random sequences w.r.t. the measure $`\mu `$.

As to sequences of cbits, the considerations made in sectionI may be thoroughly formalized through the following:

###### Theorem II.3

*Weak-shallowness of Martin Löf - Solovay - Chaitin random sequences*:

$$CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}$$
(14)
PROOF:

Since the Lebesgue measure $`\mu _{Lebesgue}`$ is recursive and by definition:

$$CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})=\mu _{Lebesgue}RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(15)
the thesis immediately follows by theoremII.2 $`\mathrm{}`$

## III The definition of the physical complexity of classical dynamical systems

Since much of the fashion about complexity is based on a spread confusion among different notions, starting from the basic difference among *plain Kolmogorov complexity* K and *algorithmic information* I, much care has to be taken.

Let us start from the following notions by Brudno:

###### Definition III.1

*Brudno algorithmic entropy of $`\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$*:

$$B(\overline{x}):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{K(\stackrel{}{x}(n))}{n}$$
(16)
At this point one could think that considering the asympotic rate of *algorithmic information* instead of *plain Kolmogorov complexity* would result in a different definition of the algorithmic entropy of a sequence.

That this is not the case is the content of the following:

###### Theorem III.1

$$B(\overline{x})=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{I(\stackrel{}{x}(n))}{n}$$
(17)
PROOF:

It immediately follows by the fact that Staiger-99 :

$$|I(\stackrel{}{x}(n))K(\stackrel{}{x}(n))|o(n)$$
(18)
$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition III.2

*$`\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is Brudno-random*:

$$B(\overline{x})>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(19)
I will denote the set of all the Brudno random binary sequences by $`BRUDNO(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$.

One great source of confusion in a part of the literature arises from the ignorance of the following basic result proved by Brudno himself Brudno-78 :

###### Theorem III.2

*Brudno randomness is weaker than Chaitin randomness*:

$$BRUDNORANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(20)
as we will see in the sequel of this section.

Following the analysis performed in Segre-02  (to which I demand for further details) I will recall here some basic notion of Classical Ergodic Theory:

given a classical probability space $`(X,\mu )`$:

###### Definition III.3

*endomorphism of $`(X,\mu )`$*:

$`T:HALTING(\mu )HALTING(\mu )`$ surjective :

$$\mu (A)=\mu (T^1A)AHALTING(\mu )$$
(21)
where $`HALTING(\mu )`$ is the halting-set of the measure $`\mu `$, namely the $`\sigma `$-algebra of subsets of X on which $`\mu `$ is defined.

###### Definition III.4

*classical dynamical system*:

a triple $`(X,\mu ,T)`$ such that:

* $`(X,\mu )`$ is a classical probability space
* $`T:HALTING(\mu )HALTING(\mu )`$ is an endomorphism of $`(X,\mu )`$

Given a classical dynamical system $`(X,\mu ,T)`$:

###### Definition III.5

*$`(X,\mu ,T)`$ is ergodic*:

$$lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\mu (AT^k(B))=\mu (A)\mu (B)A,BHALTING(\mu )$$
(22)
###### Definition III.6

*n-letters alphabet*:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n:=\{0,\mathrm{},n1\}$$
(23)
Clearly:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(24)
Given a classical probability space $`(X,\mu )`$:

###### Definition III.7

*finite measurable partition of $`(X,\mu )`$*:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A& =\{A_0,\mathrm{}A_{n1}\}n:\hfill \\ \hfill A_i& HALTING(\mu )i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{},n1\hfill \\ \hfill A_i& A_j=\mathrm{}ij\hfill \\ \hfill \mu & (X_{i=0}^{n1}A_i)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
I will denote the set of all the finite measurable partitions of $`(X,\mu )`$ by $`𝒫(X,\mu )`$.

Given two partitions $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1},B=\{B_j\}_{j=0}^{m1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$:

###### Definition III.8

*A is a coarse-graining of B $`(AB)`$*:

every atom of A is the union of atoms by B

###### Definition III.9

*coarsest refinement of $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ and $`B=\{B_j\}_{j=0}^{m1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$*:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A& B𝒫(X,\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill A& B:=\{A_iB_ji=0,\mathrm{},n1j=0,\mathrm{},m1\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Clearly $`𝒫(X,\mu )`$ is closed both under coarsest refinements and under endomorphisms of $`(X,\mu )`$.

Let us observe that, beside its abstract, mathematical formalization, the definitionIII.7 has a precise operational meaning.

Given the classical probability space $`(X,\mu )`$ let us suppose to make an experiment on the probabilistic universe it describes using an instrument whose distinguishing power is limited in that it is not able to distinguish events belonging to the same atom of a partition $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$.

Consequentially the outcome of such an experiment will be a number:

$$r\mathrm{\Sigma }_n$$
(27)
specifying the observed atom $`A_r`$ in our coarse-grained observation of $`(X,\mu )`$.

I will call such an experiment an *operational observation of $`(X,\mu )`$ through the partition A*.

Considered another partition $`B=\{B_j\}_{j=0}^{m1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$ we have obviously that the operational observation of $`(X,\mu )`$ through the partition $`AB`$ is the conjuction of the two experiments consisting in the operational observations of $`(X,\mu )`$ through the partitions, respectively, A and B.

Consequentially we may consistently call an *operational observation of $`(X,\mu )`$ through the partition A* more simply an A-experiment.

The experimental outcome of an operational observation of $`(X,\mu )`$ through the partition $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$ is a classical random variable having as distribution the stochastic vector $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu (A_0)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu (A_{n1})\end{array}\right)`$ whose *classical probabilistic information*, i.e. its Shannon entropy, I will call the entropy of the partition A, according to the following:

###### Definition III.10

*entropy of $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$*:

$$H(A):=H(\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu (A_0)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu (A_{n1})\end{array}\right))$$
(28)
It is fundamental, at this point, to observe that, given an experiment, one has to distinguish between two conceptually different concepts:

1. the *uncertainty of the experiment*, i.e. the amount of uncertainty on the outcome of the experiment before to realize it
2. the *information of the experiment*, i.e. the amount of information gained by the outcome of the experiment

As lucidly observed by Patrick Billingsley Billingsley-65 , the fact that in Classical Probabilistic Information Theory both these concepts are quantified by the Shannon entropy of the experiment is a consequence of the following:

###### Theorem III.3

*The soul of Classical Information Theory*:

$$\text{information gained}=\text{uncertainty removed}$$
(29)
TheoremIII.3 applies, in particular, as to the partition-experiments we are discussing.

Let us now consider a classical dynamical system $`CDS:=(X,\mu ,T)`$.

The T-invariance of $`\mu `$ implies that the partitions $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ and $`T^1A:=\{T^1A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ have equal probabilistic structure. Consequentially the *A-experiment* and the  *$`T^1A`$-experiment* are replicas, *not necessarily independent*, of the same experiment, made at successive times.

In the same way the *$`_{k=0}^{n1}T^kA`$-experiment* is the compound experiment consisting of n repetitions $`A,T^1A,,\mathrm{},T^{(n1)}A`$ of the experiment corresponding to $`A𝒫(X,\mu )`$.

The amount of classical information per replication we obtain in this compound experiment is clearly:

$$\frac{1}{n}H(_{k=0}^{n1}T^kA)$$

It may be proved Kornfeld-Sinai-00  that when n grows this amount of classical information acquired per replication converges, so that the following quantity:

$$h(A,T):=lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}H(_{k=0}^{n1}T^kA)$$
(30)
exists.

In different words, we can say that $`h(A,T)`$ gives the asymptotic rate of acquired classical information per replication of the A-experiment.

We can at last introduce the following fundamental notion originally proposed by Kolmogorov for K-systems and later extended by Yakov Sinai to arbitrary classical dynamical systems Kolmogorov-58 , AMS-LMS-00 , Sinai-76 , Sinai-94 , Kornfeld-Sinai-00 :

###### Definition III.11

*Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy of CDS*:

$$h_{CDS}:=sup_{A𝒫(X,\mu )}h(A,T)$$
(31)
By definition we have clearly that:

$$h_{CDS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(32)
###### Definition III.12

*CDS is chaotic*:

$$h_{CDS}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(33)
DefinitionIII.12 shows explicitly that the concept of classical-chaos is an information-theoretic one:

a classical dynamical system is chaotic if there is at least one experiment on the system that, no matter how many times we insist on repeating it, continues to give us classical information.

That such a meaning of classical chaoticity is equivalent to the more popular one as the sensible (i.e. exponential) dependence of dynamics from the initial conditions is a consequence of Pesin’s Theorem stating (under mild assumptions) the equality of the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy and the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents.

This inter-relation may be caught observing that:

* if the system is chaotic we know that there is an experiment whose repetition definitely continues to give information: such an information may be seen as the information on the initial condition that is necessary to furnish more and more with time if one want to keep the error on the prediction of the phase-point below a certain bound
* if the system is not chaotic the repetition of every experiment is useful only a finite number of times, after which every further repetition doesn’t furnish further information

Let us now consider the issue of symbolically translating the coarse-grained dynamics following the traditional way of proceeding described in the second section of Alekseev-Yakobson-1981 : given a number $`n:n2`$ let us introduce the following:

###### Definition III.13

*n-adic value*:

the map $`v_n:\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$:

$$v_n(\overline{x}):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x_i}{n^i}$$
(34)
the more usual notation:

$$(0.x_1\mathrm{}x_m\mathrm{})_n:=v_n(\overline{x})\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{}}$$
(35)
and the following:

###### Definition III.14

*n-adic nonterminating natural positional representation*:

the map $`r_n:[0,1]\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$r_n((0.x_1\mathrm{}x_i\mathrm{})_n):=\overline{x}$$
(36)
with the nonterminating condition requiring that the numbers of the form $`(0.x_1\mathrm{}x_i\overline{(n1)})_n=(0.\mathrm{}(x_i+1)\overline{0})_n`$ are mapped into the sequence $`x_1\mathrm{}x_i\overline{(n1)}`$.

Given $`n_1,n_2:\mathrm{min}(n_1,n_2)2`$:

###### Definition III.15

*change of basis from $`n_1`$ to $`n_2`$*:

the map $`cb_{n_1,n_2}:\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_2}^{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$cb_{n_1,n_2}(\overline{x}):=r_{n_2}(v_{n_1}(\overline{x}))$$
(37)
It is important to remark that Calude-02 :

###### Theorem III.4

*Basis-independence of randomness*:

$$RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_2}^{\mathrm{}})=cb_{n_1,n_2}(RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_1}^{\mathrm{}}))n_1,n_2:\mathrm{min}(n_1,n_2)2$$
(38)
Considered a partition $`A=\{A_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}𝒫(X,\mu )`$:

###### Definition III.16

*symbolic translator of CDS w.r.t. A*:

$`\psi _A:X\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$:

$$\psi _A(x):=i:xA_i$$
(39)
In this way one associates to each point of X the letter, in the alphabet having as many letters as the number of atoms of the considered partition, labeling the atom to which the point belongs.

Concatenating the letters corresponding to the phase-point at different times one can then codify $`k`$ steps of the dynamics:

###### Definition III.17

*k-point symbolic translator of CDS w.r.t. A*:

$`\psi _A^{(k)}:X\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^k`$:

$$\psi _A^{(k)}(x):=_{j=0}^{k1}\psi _A(T^jx)$$
(40)
and whole orbits:

###### Definition III.18

*orbit symbolic translator of CDS w.r.t. A*:

$`\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}:X\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x):=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}\psi _A(T^jx)$$
(41)
The asymptotic rate of acquisition of *plain Kolmogorov complexity* of the binary sequence obtained translating symbolically the orbit generated by $`xX`$ through the partition $`A𝒫(X,\mu )`$ is clearly given by:

###### Definition III.19

$$B(A,x):=B(cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{\mathrm{}}(x)))$$
(42)
We saw in definitionIII.11 that the *Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy* was defined as $`K(A,x)`$ computed on the more probabilistically-informative A-experiment; in the same way the *Brudno algorithmic entropy of x* is defined as the value of $`B(A,x)`$ computed on the more algorithmically-informative A-experiment:

###### Definition III.20

*Brudno algorithmic entropy of (the orbit starting from) x*:

$$B_{CDS}(x):=sup_{A𝒫(X,\mu )}B(cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x)))$$
(43)
Demanding to Segre-02  for further details, let us recall that, as it is natural for different approaches of studying a same object, the *probabilistic approach* and the *algorithmic approach* to Classical Information Theory are deeply linked:

the partial map $`D_I:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ defined by:

$$D_I(\stackrel{}{x}):=\stackrel{}{x}^{}$$
(44)
is by construction a prefix-code of pure algorithmic nature, so that it would be very reasonable to think that it may be optimal only for some ad hoc probability distribution, i.e. that for a generic probability distribution P the *average code word length of $`D_I`$ w.r.t. P*:

$$L_{D_I,P}=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}HALTING(D_I)}{}P(\stackrel{}{x})I(\stackrel{}{x})$$
(45)
won’t achieve the optimal bound, the Shannon information H(P), stated by the corner stone of Classical Probabilistic Information, i.e. the following celebrated:

###### Theorem III.5

*Classical noiseless coding theorem*:

$$H(P)L_PH(P)+1$$
(46)
(where $`L_P`$ is the *minimal average code word length allowed by the distribution P*)

Contrary, the deep link between the *probabilistic-approach* and the *algorithmic-approach* makes the miracle: under mild assumptions about the distribution P the code $`D_I`$ is optimal as it is stated by the following:

###### Theorem III.6

*Link between Classical Probabilistic Information and Classical Algorithmic Information*:

HP:

P recursive classical probability distribution over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$

TH:

$$c_P_+:\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}L_{D_I,P}H(P)c_P$$
(47)
With an eye at theoremIII.1 it is then natural to expect that such a link between *classical probabilistic information* and *classical algorithmic information* generates a link between the asymptotic rate of acquisition of *classical probabilistic information* and the asymptotic rate of acquisition of *classical algorithmic information* of the coarse grained dynamics of CDS observed by repetitions of the experiments for which each of them is maximal.

Demanding to Brudno-83  for further details such a reasoning, properly formalized, proves the following:

###### Theorem III.7

*Brudno’s theorem*:

HP:

CDS ergodic

TH:

$$h_{CDS}=B_{CDS}(x)\mu a.e.xX$$
(48)
Let us now consider the algorithmic approach to Classical Chaos Theory strongly supported by Joseph Ford, whose objective is the characterization of the concept of chaoticity of a classical dynamical system as the algorithmic-randomness of its symbolically-translated trajectories.

To require such a condition for all the trajectories would be too restrictive since it is reasonable to allow a chaotic dynamical system to have a countable number of periodic orbits.

Let us then introduce the following two notions:

###### Definition III.21

*CDS is strongly algorithmically-chaotic*:

$$\mu a.e.xX,A𝒫(X,\mu ):cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x))CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(49)
###### Definition III.22

*CDS is weak algorithmically-chaotic*:

$$\mu a.e.xX,A𝒫(X,\mu ):cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x))BRUDNORANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(50)
The difference between definitionIII.21 and definitionIII.22 follows by TheoremIII.2.

Clearly TheoremIII.7 implies the following:

###### Corollary III.1

$`chaoticity`$ $`=\text{weak algorithmic chaoticity}`$
$`chaoticity`$ $`<\text{strong algorithmic chaoticity}`$
that shows that the algorithmic approach to Classical Chaos Theory is equivalent to the usual one only in weak sense.

The plethora of wrong statements found in a part of the literature caused by the ignorance of corollary III.1 is anyway of little importance if compared with the complete misunderstanding of the difference existing among the concepts of *chaoticity* and *complexity* for classical dynamical systems; with this regards the analysis made in sectionI may be now thoroughly formalized introducing the following natural notions:

###### Definition III.23

*CDS is strongly-complex*:

$$\mu a.e.xX,A𝒫(X,\mu ):cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x))STRONGLYCOMPLEX(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(51)
###### Definition III.24

*CDS is weakly complex*:

$$\mu a.e.xX,A𝒫(X,\mu ):cb_{card(A),2}(\psi _A^{(\mathrm{})}(x))WEAKLYCOMPLEX(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})$$
(52)
One has that:

###### Theorem III.8

*Weak-shallowness of chaotic dynamical systems*:

CDS chaotic $``$ CDS weakly-shallow

PROOF:

The thesis immediately follows combining theoremII.3 with the definitions def.III.23 and def.III.24 $`\mathrm{}`$

## IV The definition of the physical complexity of strings and sequences of qubits

The idea that the physical complexity of a quantum object has to be measured in terms of a quantum analogue of Bennett’s notion of *logical depth* has been first proposed by Michael Nielsen Nielsen-02a ,Nielsen-02b .

Unfortunately, beside giving some general remark about the properties he thinks such a notion should have, Nielsen have not given a mathematical definition of it.

The first step in this direction consists, in my opinion, in considering that, such as the notion of *classical-logical-depth* belongs to the framework of Classical Algorithmic Information Theory, the notion of *quantum-logical-depth* belongs to the framework of Quantum Algorithmic Information Theory Segre-02 .

One of the most debated issues in such a discipline, first discussed by its father Karl Svozil Svozil-96  and rediscovered later by the following literature Manin-99 , Vitanyi-99 , Berthiaume-van-Dam-Laplante-00 , Gacs-00 , Vitanyi-01 , Segre-02 , is whether the programs of the involved universal quantum computers have to be strings of cbits or strings of qubits.

As I have already noted in Segre-02 , anyway, it must be observed that, owing to the natural bijection among the computational basis $`_{}`$ of the *Hilbert space of qubits’ strings* (notions that I am going to introduce) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, one can always assume that the input is a string of qubits while the issue, more precisely restated, is whether the input has (or not) to be constrained to belong to the computational basis.

So, denoted by $`_2:=^2`$ the one-qubit’s Hilbert space (endowed with its orthonormal computational basis $`_2:=\{|i>,i\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$) , denoted by $`_2^{\scriptscriptstyle n}:=_{k=0}^n_2`$ the *n-qubits’ Hilbert space*, (endowed with its orthonormal computational basis $`_n:=\{|\stackrel{}{x}>,\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^n\}`$), denoted by $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }}:=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}_2^{\scriptscriptstyle n}`$ the *Hilbert space of qubits’ strings* (endowed with its orthonormal computational basis $`_{}:=\{|\stackrel{}{x}>,\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\}`$) and denoted by $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}:=_n_2`$ the *Hilbert space of qubits’ sequences* (endowed with its orthonormal computational rigged-basis <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1as it should be obvious, the unusual locution *rigged-basis* I am used to adopt is simply a shortcut to denote that such a ”basis” has to be intended in the mathematical sense it assumes when $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}`$ is considered as endowed with a suitable rigging, i.e. as part of a suitable *rigged Hilbert space* $`𝒮_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}𝒮^{}`$ as described in Reed-Simon-80 , Reed-Simon-75  $`_{\mathrm{}}:=\{|\overline{x}>,\overline{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\}`$), one simply assumes that, instead of being a *classical Chaitin universal computer*, U is a *quantum Chaitin universal computer*, i.e. a universal quantum computer whose input, following Svozil’s original position on the mentioned issue, is constrained to belong to $`_{}`$ and is such that, w.r.t. the natural bijection among $`_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, satisfies the usual Chaitin constraint of having prefix-free halting-set.

The definition of the logical depth of a string of qubits is then straightforward:

given a vector $`|\psi >_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$ and a string $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$:

###### Definition IV.1

*canonical program of $`|\psi >`$*:

$$|\psi >^{}:=\underset{<_l}{\mathrm{min}}\{\stackrel{}{y}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:U(\stackrel{}{y})=|\psi >\}$$
(53)
###### Definition IV.2

*halting time of the computation with input $`|\stackrel{}{x}>`$*:

$$T(\stackrel{}{x}):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{number of computational steps after which U halts on input }\stackrel{}{x}\text{ },\hfill & \text{if }U(\stackrel{}{x})=\hfill \\ +\mathrm{},\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
###### Definition IV.3

*logical depth of $`|\psi >`$ at significance level s*:

$$D_s(|\psi >):=\mathrm{min}\{T(\stackrel{}{y}):U(\stackrel{}{y})=|\psi >,\stackrel{}{y}\text{ s-incompressible }\}$$
(55)
###### Definition IV.4

*$`|\psi >`$ is t-deep at significance level s*:

$$D_s(|\psi >)>t$$
(56)
###### Definition IV.5

*$`|\psi >`$ is t-shallow at significance level s*:

$$D_s(|\psi >)t$$
(57)
I will denote the set of all the t-deep strings of qubits as $`tDEEP(_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }})`$.

Let us observe that a sharp distinction among *depth* and *shallowness* of qubits’ strings is impossible; this is nothing but a further confirmation of the fact, so many times shown and analyzed in Segre-02 , that almost all the concepts of Algorithmic Information Theory, both Classical and Quantum, have a clear, conceptually sharp meaning only when sequences are taken into account.

The great complication concerning sequences of qubits consists in that their mathematically-rigorous analysis requires to give up the simple language of Hilbert spaces passing to the more sophisticated language of *noncommutative spaces*; indeed, as extensively analyzed in Segre-02  adopting the notion of *noncommutative cardinality* therein explicitly introduced <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2following Miklos Redei’s many remarks Redei-98 , Redei-01  mentioned in Segre-02 , about how Von Neumann considered his classification of factors as a theory of noncommutative cardinalities though he never thought, as well as Redei, that the same $`\mathrm{}`$’s symbolysm of the commutative case could be adopted , the fact that the correct noncommutative space of qubits’ sequences is the hyperfinite $`II_1`$ factor:

###### Definition IV.6

*noncommutative space of qubits’ sequences*:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}:=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(M_2(),\tau _{unbiased})=R$$
(58)
and not the noncommutative space $`(_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}})`$ of all the bounded linear operators on $`_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}`$ (that could be still managed in the usual language of Hilbert spaces) is proved by the fact that, as it must be, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}`$ has the *continuum noncommutative-cardinality*:

$$card_{NC}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}_1$$
(59)
while $`(_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}})`$ has only the *countable noncommutative cardinality*:

$$card_{NC}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{})=\mathrm{}_0$$
(60)
While the definitionII.8 of a strongly-deep sequence of cbits has no natural quantum analogue, the definition of a weakly-deep sequence of qubits is straightforward.

Denoted by $`RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ the space of all the algorithmically random sequences of qubits, for whose characterization I demand to Segre-02 , let us observe that the equality between *truth-table reducibility* and *recursive time bound reducibility* existing as to Classical Computation may be naturally imposed to Quantum Computation in the following way:

given two arbitrary mathematical quantities x and y:

###### Definition IV.7

*x is quantum-truth-table reducible to y*:

$$x_{tt}^Qy:=\text{x is U-computable from y in bounded U-computable time}$$
(61)
Given a sequence of qubits $`\overline{a}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}`$:

###### Definition IV.8

*$`\overline{a}`$ is weakly-deep*:

$$\overline{b}RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}):\neg (\overline{a}_{tt}^Q\overline{b})$$
(62)
Denoted the set of all the weakly-deep sequences of qubits as $`WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$:

###### Definition IV.9

*set of all the weakly-shallow sequences of qubits*:

$$WEAKLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}):=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}(WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}))$$
(63)
It is natural, at this point, to conjecture that an analogue of theoremII.2 exists in Quantum Algorithmic Information Theory too:

###### Conjecture IV.1

*Alternative characterization of weakly-shallow sequences of qubits*:

$$\overline{a}WEAKLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})\omega S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})Ucomputable:\overline{a}\omega RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})$$
(64)
where $`\omega RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ denotes the set of all the $`\omega `$\- random sequences of qubits w.r.t. the state $`\omega S(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ to be defined generalizing the definition of $`RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ to states different by $`\tau _{unbiased}`$ along the lines indicated in Segre-02  as to the definition of the *laws of randomness* $`_{RANDOMNESS}^{NC}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}},\omega )`$ of the *noncommutative probability space* $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}},\omega )`$.

As to sequences of qubits, the considerations made in the sectionI may be thoroughly formalized, at the prize of assuming the conjectureIV.1 as an hypothesis, through the following:

###### Theorem IV.1

*Weak-shallowness of random sequences of qubits*:

HP:

ConjectureIV.1 holds

TH:

$$RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{}$$
(65)
PROOF:

Since the *unbiased state* $`\tau _{unbiased}`$ is certainly U-computable and by definition:

$$RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})=\tau _{unbiased}RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})$$
(66)
the assumption of the conjectureIV.1 as an hypothesis immediately leads to the thesis $`\mathrm{}`$

## V The definition of the physical complexity of quantum dynamical systems

As we have seen in sectionIII the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy $`h_{KS}(CDS)`$ of a *classical dynamical system* $`CDS:=(X,\mu ,T)`$ has a clear physical information-theoretic meaning that we can express in the following way:

1. an experimenter is trying to obtain information about the dynamical evolution of CDS performing repeatedly on the system a given experiment $`expEXPERIMENTS`$,
2. $`h(exp,CDS)`$ is the asymptotic rate of acquisition of classical information about the dynamics of CDS that he acquires replicating exp
3. $`h_{KS}(CDS)`$ is such an asymptotic rate, computed for the more informative possible experiment:

$$h_{KS}(CDS)=\underset{expEXPERIMENTS}{sup}h(exp,CDS)$$
(67)

Let us now pass to analyze quantum dynamical systems, for whose definition and properties I demand to Segre-02 .

Given a *quantum dynamical system* QDS the physical information-theoretical way of proceeding would consist in analyzing the same experimental situation in which an experimenter is trying to obtain information about the dynamical evolution of QDS performing repeatedly on the system a given experiment $`expEXPERIMENTS`$:

1. to define $`h(exp,QDS)`$ as the asymptotic rate of acquisition of information about the dynamics of QDS that he acquires replicating the experiment exp
2. to define the *dynamical entropy* of QDS as such an asymptotic rate, computed for the more informative possible experiment:

resulting in the following:

###### Definition V.1

*dynamical entropy of QDS*:

$$h_{d.e.}(QDS)=\underset{expEXPERIMENTS}{sup}h(exp,QDS)$$
(68)
###### Definition V.2

*QDS is chaotic*:

$$h_{d.e.}(QDS)>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(69)
The irreducibility of Quantum Information Theory to Classical Information Theory, caused by the fact that theoremIII.3 doesn’t extend to the quantum case owing to the existence of some non-accessible information about a quantum system (as implied by the Grönwald-Lindblad-Holevo Theorem) and the consequent irreducibility of the qubit to the cbit Nielsen-Chuang-00 , Segre-02 , would then naturally lead to the physical issue whether the information acquired by the experimenter is classical or quantum, i.e. if $`h_{d.e.}(QDS)`$ is a number of cbits or a number of qubits.

Such a physical approach to quantum dynamical entropy was performed first by Göran Lindblad Lindblad-79  and later refined and extended by Robert Alicki and Mark Fannes resulting in the so called *Alicki-Lindblad-Fannes entropy* Alicki-Fannes-01 .

Many attempts to define a quantum analogue of the *Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy* pursued, instead, a different purely mathematical approach consisting in generalizing noncommutatively the mathematical machinery of partitions and coarsest-refinements underlying the definitionIII.11, obtaining mathematical objects whose (eventual) physical meaning was investigated subsequently.

This was certainly the case as to the *Connes-Narnhofer-Thirring entropy*, the *entropy of Sauvageot and Thouvenot* and *Voiculescu’s approximation entropy* Connes-Narnhofer-Thirring-87 , Stormer-02 .

As to the *Connes-Narnhofer-Thirring entropy*, in particular, the noncommutative analogue playing the role of the classical partitions are the so called *Abelian models* whose (eventual) physical meaning is rather obscure since, as it has been lucidly shown by Fabio Benatti in his very beautiful book Benatti-93 , they don’t correspond to physical experiments performed on the system, since even a projective-measurement (i.e. a measurement corresponding to a Projection Valued Measure) cannot, in general, provide an abelian model, owing to the fact that its reduction-formula corresponds to a decomposition of the state of the system if and only if the measured observable belongs to the centralizer of the state of the system.

It may be worth observing, by the way, that the non-existence of an agreement into the scientific community as to the correct quantum analogue of the *Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy* and hence on the definition of *quantum chaoticity* shouldn’t surprise, such an agreement lacking even for the well more basic notion of *quantum ergodicity*, *Zelditch’s quantum ergodicity* Zelditch-96  (more in the spirit of the original *Von Neumann’s quantum ergodicity* von-Neumann-29  to which it is not anyway clear if it reduces exactly as to quantum dynamical systems of the form $`(A,\omega ,\alpha )`$ with $`card_{NC}(A)\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`\alpha INN(A)`$) differing from *Thirring’s quantum ergodicity* Thirring-83  adopted both in Benatti-93  and in Alicki-Fannes-01 .

Returning, now, to the physical approach based on the definitionV.1, the mentioned issue whether the dynamical entropy $`h_{d.e.}(QDS)`$ is a measure of *classical information* or of *quantum information* (i.e. if it is a number of cbits or qubits) is of particular importance as soon as one tries to extend to the quantum domain Joseph Ford’s algorithmic approach to Chaos Theory seen in sectionIII:

1. in the former case, in fact, one should define *quantum algorithmic chaoticity* by the requirement that almost all the trajectories, symbolically codified in a suitable way, belong to $`BRUDNO(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ for *quantum weak algorithmic chaoticity* and to $`CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ for *quantum strong algorithmic chaoticity*
2. in the latter case, instead, one should define *quantum algorithmic chaoticity* by the requirement that almost all the trajectories, symbolically codified in a suitable way, belong to $`RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$

In any case one would then be tempted to conjecture the existence of a Quantum Brudno’s Theorem stating the equivalence of *quantum chaoticity* and *quantum algorithmic chaoticity*, at least in weak sense, for *quantum ergodic dynamical systems*.

The mentioned issue whether the dynamical entropy $`h_{d.e.}(QDS)`$ is a measure of *classical information* or of *quantum information* (i.e. if it is a number of cbits or qubits) is of great importance also as to the definition of a *deep quantum dynamical system* (i.e. a *physically-complex quantum dynamical system*):

1. in the former case, in fact, one should define a *strongly (weakly) - deep quantum dynamical system* as a quantum dynamical system such that almost all its trajectories, symbolically codified in a suitable way, belong to $`STRONGLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})(WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}))`$.
2. in the latter case, instead, one should define a *weakly-deep quantum dynamical system* as a quantum dynamical system such that almost all its trajectories, symbolically codified in a suitable way, belong to $`WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$

In any case, or by the theoremII.3 or by the theoremIV.1, one would be almost certainly led to a quantum analogue of theoremIII.8 stating that a *chaotic quantum dynamical system* is *weakly-shallow*, i.e. is not *physically complex*.

## VI Acknoledgements

I’d like to thank Fabio Benatti and Gianni Jona-Lasinio for everything they taught me about classical and quantum dynamical systems

## VII Notation

| $``$ | for every (universal quantificator) |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mu a.e.`$ | for $`\mu almost`$ every |
| $``$ | exists (existential quantificator) |
| $`!`$ | exists and is unique |
| $`x=y`$ | x is equal to y |
| $`x:=y`$ | x is defined as y |
| $`\neg p`$ | negation of p |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ | binary alphabet $`\{0,1\}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ | n-letters’ alphabet |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}`$ | strings on the alphabet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{\mathrm{}}`$ | sequences on the alphabet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ |
| $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ | string |
| $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ | length of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ |
| $`<_l`$ | lexicographical ordering on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ |
| $`string(n)`$ | $`n^{th}`$ string in lexicographic order |
| $`\overline{x}`$ | sequence |
| $``$ | concatenation operator |
| $`x_n`$ | $`n^{th}`$ digit of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ or of the sequence $`\overline{x}`$ |
| $`\stackrel{}{x}(n)`$ | prefix of length n of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ or of the sequence $`\overline{x}`$ |
| $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}`$ | canonical string of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ |
| $`K(\stackrel{}{x})`$ | plain Kolmogorov complexity of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ |
| $`I(\stackrel{}{x})`$ | algorithmic information of the string $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ |
| $`U(\stackrel{}{x})`$ | U halts on input $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ |
| $`D_s(\stackrel{}{x})`$ | logical-depth of $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at significance level s |
| $`tDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ | t-deep strings of cbits |
| $`tSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ | t-shallow strings of cbits |
| $`RECMAP(,)`$ | (total) recursive functions over $``$ |
| $`_T`$ | Turing reducibility |
| $`_T^P`$ | polynomial time Turing reducibility |
| $`_{tt}`$ | truth-table reducibility |
| $`CHAITINRANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}})`$ | Martin Löf - Solovay \- Chaitin random sequences of cbits |
| $`HALTING(\mu )`$ | halting set of the measure $`\mu `$ |

| $`\mu _{Lebesgue}`$ | Lebesgue measure |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mu RANDOM\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | Martin Löf random sequences of cbits w.r.t. $`\mu `$ |
| $`B\left(\overline{x}\right)`$ | Brudno algorithmic entropy of the sequence $`\overline{x}`$ |
| $`BRUDNO\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | Brudno random sequences of cbits |
| $`STRONGLYDEEP\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | strongly-deep sequences of cbits |
| $`STRONGLYSHALLOW\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | strongly-shallow sequences of cbits |
| $`WEAKLYDEEP\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | weakly-deep sequences of cbits |
| $`WEAKLYSHALLOW\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ | weakly-shallow sequences of cbits |
| $`𝒫(X,\mu )`$ | (finite, measurable) partitions of $`(X,\mu )`$ |
| $``$ | coarse-graining relation on partitions |
| $`AB`$ | coarsest refinement of A and B |
| $`h_{CDS}`$ | Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy of CDS |
| $`\psi _A`$ | symbolic translator w.r.t. A |
| $`\psi _A^{\left(k\right)}`$ | k-point symbolic translator w.r.t. A |
| $`\psi _A^{\left(\mathrm{}\right)}`$ | orbit symbolic translator w.r.t. A |
| $`cb_{n_1,n_2}`$ | change of basis from $`n_1`$ to $`n_2`$ |
| $`B_{CDS}\left(x\right)`$ | Brudno algorithmic entropy of x’s orbit in CDS |
| $`H\left(P\right)`$ | Shannon entropy of the distribution P |
| $`L_{D,P}`$ | average code-word length w.r.t. the code D and the distribution P |
| $`L_P`$ | minimal average code-word length w.r.t. the distribution P |
| $`_2`$ | one-qubit’s Hilbert space |
| $`_2^{\scriptscriptstyle n}`$ | n-qubits’ Hilbert space |
| $`_n`$ | computational basis of $`_2^{\scriptscriptstyle n}`$ |
| $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$ | Hilbert space of qubits’ strings |
| $`_{}`$ | computational basis of $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }}`$ |
| $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}`$ | Hilbert space of qubits’ sequences |
| $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ | computational rigged-basis of $`_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}}}`$ |
| $`\left(\right)`$ | bounded linear operators on $``$ |

| $`|\psi >^{}`$ | canonical program of $`|\psi >`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`D_s(|\psi >)`$ | logical depth of $`|\psi >`$ at significance level s |
| $`tDEEP(_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }})`$ | t-deep strings of qubits |
| $`tSHALLOW(_2^{{\scriptscriptstyle }})`$ | t-shallow strings of qubits |
| $`S(A)`$ | states over the noncommutative space A |
| $`card(A)`$ | cardinality of A |
| $`INN(A)`$ | inner automorphisms of A |
| $`card_{NC}(A)`$ | noncommutative cardinality of A |
| $`\tau _{unbiased}`$ | unbiased noncommutative probability distribution |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}}`$ | noncommutative space of qubits’ sequences |
| R | hyperfinite $`II_1`$ factor |
| $`RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ | random sequences of qubits |
| $`_{tt}^Q`$ | quantum truth-table reducibility |
| $`WEAKLYDEEP(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ | weakly-deep sequences of qubits |
| $`WEAKLYSHALLOW(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ | weakly-shallow sequences of qubits |
| $`_{RANDOMNESS}^{NC}(A,\omega )`$ | laws of randomness of $`(A,\omega )`$ |
| $`\omega RANDOM(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{NC}^{\mathrm{}})`$ | random sequences of qubits w.r.t. $`\omega `$ |
| $`h_{d.e.}(QDS)`$ | dynamical entropy of the quantum dynamical system QDS |
| i.e. | id est |
| e.g. | exempli gratia |


format: text

text:
# On baryon-antibaryon coupling to two photons

## I Introduction

Recently there has been the interesting proposal freund ; weiss ; diehl-99 ; diehl ; diehl-1  that exclusive proton-antiproton annihilation into two photons can, under certain kinematic conditions, be described by a generalized partonic picture. As such, this gives a new potential probe of non-forward parton distribution or double distributions ji ; rad . It is argued freund ; weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1  that the two photons are emitted in the annihilation of a single quark and antiquark (thus via the “handbag” graph) whereby the process may be described by a generalised parton picture analogous to the “soft mechanism” in wide-angle real Compton scattering. An essential feature of the arguments is that for on-shell photons at large $`s`$, the limited space-like virtuality of the bound state wavefunctions constrains the active quark and antiquark to be “fast”, i.e. have $`x1`$.

The purpose of this paper is to show that extension of recent work on quark-hadron duality fcisgur ; fcqz1 ; ijmv  may help to justify some of the arguments that enable phenomenology of the handbag diagram to be employed away from fully asymptotic regime.

References diehl-99 ; diehl  demonstrated that a “soft-handbag” contribution (defined by restricted transverse momenta and virtualities of quarks) factorises into a soft hadronic matrix element and a partonic subprocess, $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}`$ in the limit $`x1`$ and large $`s,t,u`$. However, there is no general proof that such soft-handbag topology dominates for large (finite) $`s`$ though there are indirect hints of its importance from phenomenological fits to data in e.g. $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi ,K\overline{K}`$ diehl . The description for large intermediate $`s`$ implies that the spectators possess $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/s`$ and that the $`x`$ of the active quark is not literally $`1`$, but is in the region of $`0.7`$. It is plausible that soft wavefunctions can tolerate such values of $`x`$. However, the factorization, which is reliable as $`x1`$, has corrections $`(1x)^n`$ which may become large as $`x<1`$.

In the region of $`s`$ that is in the hadronic continuum above the prominent resonances, we argue that quark-hadron duality provides some justification for neglecting coherent (“cats-ears” topology) that break factorization. It is also important to contrast the soft handbag for finite $`s`$ and $`x1`$ from the “hard” handbag for $`s\mathrm{}`$, $`x1`$ where quarks and gluons have large $`p_T`$ or virtuality. We make some brief comments here in order to distinguish from the kinematics of duality and the “soft” handbag, which forms our main focus. Thus, in what follows, we propose that duality should provide a justification for the handbag diagram dominance over a wide kinematic range. In particular, for $`s`$ above the resonance region, the presence of destructive interference among parity-even and parity-odd states fcisgur  in the coherent process for the $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation indeed supports the assumption of the handbag diagram dominance that underpins Refs. freund ; weiss ; diehl-99 ; diehl ; diehl-1  such that an effective incoherent parton interpretation can be made, but integrated over $`x`$. There is no necessary dominance of the $`x1`$ domain in this process.

Thus for example, were it possible to compare the $`p\overline{p}`$ and analogous $`n\overline{n}`$, the ratio of $`e_i^2(p)/e_i^2(n)`$ would be $`3/2`$. This corresponds to a value of 1/2 for the fragmentation parameter $`\rho `$ diehl-1 .

## II Handbag dominance and $`x1`$

Reference freund ; weiss  considers $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$ to be Compton scattering in the crossed channel, where the exchanged system in the $`t(u)`$ channel consists of at least three quarks. At large momentum transfers such a configuration should be strongly suppressed by the composite systems’ wavefunctions. Hence Refs. freund ; weiss  argue that the most efficient way of accommodating a large momentum transfer is via the handbag diagram (where the $`p\overline{p}`$ system makes a transition to a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair by exchanging a virtual “diquark” system whose spacelike virtuality is limited by the bound-state wavefunction). The $`q\overline{q}`$ then annihilate into two photons by exchanging a highly virtual quark/antiquark.

There is an essential difference between the annihilation process and the forward Compton scattering that underpins deep inelastic structure functions. In the latter, the spectator (“diquark”, etc) system is effectively passive, the active quark probability being factorized out and probed by the highly virtual photon(s). Contrast this with the exclusive annihilation process, $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$, where one may annihilate a $`q\overline{q}`$ by $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$, but must also annihilate the spectators without the emission of further radiation (be it photons, gluons or hadrons). It is this constraint in the strict limit $`s\mathrm{}`$ that effectively requires the spectators to have null energy-momentum four-vectors, and hence the active $`q\overline{q}`$ to carry the full momentum of the beams (what Refs. freund ; weiss  refer to as “fast” quarks and which Ref. diehl  use as their driving assumption in developing phenomenology). However, there is no immediate argument to support the handbag diagram dominance. For $`s\mathrm{}`$, where pQCD applies, one can see below that the (neglected) coherent or higher-twist contribution of Fig. 1b, is the same order of magnitude as the “handbag” diagram (Fig. 1a). We briefly review this to distinguish it from the large intermediate $`s`$, where the “soft-handbag” dominance may apply, and turn to this in section III.

The nucleon wavefunction restricts the spacelike virtuality of partons to be small freund . Production of a single real photon at large transverse momentum in parton-antiparton annihilation, then requires a rather singular kinematics, with $`p_i=(|p_T|,p_T,𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/\sqrt{s}))`$ for each parton (hence each $`x0`$), where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is the typical QCD energy scale. However, such a singular kinematics in principle can occur. A coherent amplitude, as in Fig. 1b, requires transfer of momentum so that at large $`s`$ the annihilating constituents all have $`x0`$. This can be achieved by means of gluon exchange but at the expense of suppression due to the large momentum flows and powers of $`\alpha _s`$. (We illustrate this for a two-body system but the argument generalizes). The superscripts in Fig. 1 denote the longitudinal momentum fractions; the most favoured configuration at the hadron vertex is for the constituents to share their momenta (see e.g. Refs. fcqz1 ; ijmv ).

The restricted kinematics ($`x1`$) is unable to guarantee the dominance of the handbag diagram illustrated by Fig. 1c. The configuration in Fig. 1c, is also kinematically singular, in that the parton probabilities vanish in the strict $`x1`$ limit, and the spectators must be null in order for their annihilation to contribute nothing. One thus needs to consider how this extreme configuration arose if, as seems natural, the preferred wavefunction (denoted by the non-shaded ovals in Figs. 1a,b,d) has the partons with symmetric configuration $`x1/2`$ (for this pedagogic example of a two body system fcqz1 ). If one allows gluon exchanges as in Fig. 1a to achieve this singular kinematics, it would lead to a configuration that is generally not suppressed relative to the one in Fig. 1b. Figure 1d then shows how the intrinsic symmetric (in $`x`$) wavefunction becomes highly asymmetric. This causes Fig. 1c to be the same order in $`\alpha _s`$ and momentum flow as Fig. 1b.

Interestingly, for $`q^2>0`$ timelike processes e.g. $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi `$, coherent diagrams such as those in Fig. 1b are anticipated in pQCD brodsky . The relative strengths of various meson-pair production processes at finite $`s`$, such as $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)/\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ do not fit well with these predictions in detail. Indeed, phenomenology seems compatible with the dominance of handbag diagrams at intermediate $`s`$. This is the subject of soft-handbag dominance freund ; diehl-99 ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; weiss  to which we now turn.

## III Soft handbag and duality at intermediate energies

We shall now propose that quark-hadron duality may provide an explanation of the phenomenological success of data analyses based on the assumed dominance of the incoherent, or “handbag” diagrams at intermediate $`s`$, and help underpin recent developments based thereon weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; freund .

In quark-hadron duality the incoherent property of the handbag diagram survives in practice even though the kinematic arguments of pQCD do not necessarily apply fcgilman ; fcisgur . The underlying dynamics lead to the effective dominance of the incoherent diagrams when a suitable averaging has taken place fcisgur . We first illustrate some empirical examples and then apply the arguments to the $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$ process weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; freund .

In the deep inelastic structure functions at large $`q^2`$ one has $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)=e_i^2(n)/e_i^2(p)`$ in kinematic circumstances where pQCD supports the incoherent dominance, and where any $`_{ij}e_ie_j`$ contributions are higher twist and thereby suppressed. However, incoherent contributions proportional to $`_ie_i^2`$ appear to control the cross-section $`ratios`$ of Compton scattering even at low $`q^2`$ where the kinematic conditions are such that $`_{ij}e_ie_j`$ contributions would be anticipated. As an extreme example, consider real photons, where the non-diffractive contribution to $`\sigma _{tot}(\gamma n)/\sigma _{tot}(\gamma p)`$ is empirically $`2/3(2e_d^2+e_u^2)/(2e_u^2+e_d^2)`$, even though there is no pQCD support for such a relation when $`q^2=0`$. The suppression of the $`_{ij}e_ie_j`$ contributions in this case is a result of duality in $`\text{Im}(\gamma N\gamma N(t=0))`$ and the constraint that there are no exotic exchanges in the crossed $`(t)`$ channel fcgilman . In a pedagogic model Reference fcisgur  showed how this can arise. Furthermore, this model has been shown to realise scaling in the structure functions (“Bloom-Gilman duality”) ijmv  and to lead to a factorization of the non-forward Compton scattering fcqz1 . The duality holds for real photons as $`t0`$, and the factorisation at least for the non-forward Compton scattering of real photons. It is the latter that crosses to $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$, whereby we propose that this may also justify the dominance of the incoherent process ($`_ie_i^2`$) in $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$, but without any restriction to $`x1`$.

In $`\text{Im}(\gamma N\gamma N(t=0))`$ the excitation of coherent intermediate resonances includes states of positive and of negative parity. These add constructively in the $`e_i^2`$ contributions but are destructive in the $`e_ie_j`$ terms. This causes a duality between the averaged resonance excitation on the one hand, and the smooth high-energy behaviour on the other hand fcisgur . As a consequence one obtains the empirical result for the ratio of the non-diffractive pieces of $`\sigma _{tot}(\gamma n)/\sigma _{tot}(\gamma p)`$ even though there is no pQCD reason for the dominance of the incoherent terms.

This picture has been extended to the spin-averaged non-forward Compton amplitude fcqz1 , where scaling and factorization properties arise. In particular, the same effective dominance of the $`_ie_i^2`$ terms arose. It implies for $`\gamma (q)A\gamma (k)A`$ with $`t(kq)^2`$, the generalized factorization for the non-forward proton structure function or double distribution function fcqz1  is

$$F_2(x,\xi ,t)=\underset{i}{}e_i^2\frac{(x\xi )(x+\xi )}{x^2}F_2(x)F_{el}(t),$$
(1)
where $`F_{el}(t)`$ is the elastic form factor satisfying $`F_{el}(t=0)=1`$. In the particular limit of $`\xi 0`$ and $`t/Q^2<<1`$, this factorization also satisfies Ji and Radyushkin’s sum rule ji ; rad .

The analogous analysis can be applied to the crossed channel, $`\gamma \gamma M\overline{M}`$, where $`M`$ refers to a two-body “meson”. The essential results can then be generalised to $`\gamma \gamma p\overline{p}`$ of Ref. weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; freund . The most general consequence is again that terms proportional to $`_{ij}e_ie_j`$ are suppressed by destructive interference (in the $`t`$-channel). The corresponding effect is that the dominant process in the $`s`$-channel is $`\gamma \gamma M(q\overline{q})p\overline{p}`$, where the intermediate meson states $`M`$ have been summed over, and all “exotic” $`qq\overline{q}\overline{q}`$ intermediate states been suppressed. This underpins the phenomenology of Ref. diehl . In particular, such arguments also immediately imply $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{})\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ in the hadronic continuum.

We can compare our distribution function with that used in Ref. freund . There, a factorization ansatz was made for the double distribution function: $`F_\alpha (x,\alpha ;s)=f_\alpha (x)h_\alpha (x,\alpha )S_\alpha (x,\alpha ,s)`$, separating the soft and hard contributions with $`S_\alpha (x,\alpha ,s=0)=1`$ and $`h(x,\alpha )𝑑\alpha =1`$. Furthermore, it was assumed that $`h_\alpha (x,\alpha )\delta (\alpha )`$.

If we now impose an analogous set of ansatz on our form \[Eq. (1)\]: $`F(x)h(x,\xi )S(x,\xi ,t)`$ with $`S(x,\xi ,t=0)=1`$, $`h(x,\xi )𝑑\xi =1`$ and $`h(x,\xi )\delta (\xi )`$, and then cross t to s channel, we obtain analogues of their Eqs. (6) and (7) freund . Namely, the factorization satisfies

$$F_2(x,\xi 0,s)=\underset{i}{}e_i^2F_2(x)F_{el}(s)=\underset{i}{}e_i^2xq(x)F_{el}(s),$$
(2)
and

$$\frac{1}{2}_{\xi =1+|x|}^{1|x|}𝑑\xi \frac{F_2(x,\xi ,s=0)}{x}=\underset{i}{}e_i^2[\theta (x)q(x)\theta (x)\overline{q}(x)],$$
(3)
where $`\xi 0`$ forces us throw away the term proportional to $`\xi ^2`$; $`q(x)`$ is the unpolarized quark (antiquark) distribution function, and $`\theta (x)`$ is the step function. The factor 1/2 comes from the re-definition of $`\xi x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}`$ in contrast with $`\xi (x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin})/2`$ in Ref. fcqz1 , and the relation $`\theta (x)F_2(x)+\theta (x)F_2(x)=0`$ according to the momentum sum rule has been used. Taking this factorization scheme, the integration ranges for $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ become $`1<x<1`$ and $`1+|x|<\xi <1|x|`$, which are consistent with the convention used in the literature weiss ; freund .

Our expression, which was generalized to the Compton scattering on the proton, then leads directly to the vector form factor for the proton defined in Ref. freund  for the $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$: $`R_V(s)_ie_i^2F_{el}(s)`$. Although the generalization of the factorization to the physical nucleon scattering has not been justified, we find that the above analytical expression from the factorization is rather interesting in light of the numerical results of Ref. freund ; weiss . Given a dipole feature to the elastic form factor $`F_{el}(s)=1/(1+s/\lambda ^2)^2`$, we plot the $`R_V(s)`$ in Fig. 2, which exhibits a similar feature as found in Ref. weiss ; freund . Meanwhile, one consequence is that the cross section ratios between the $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`n\overline{n}`$ annihilations are governed by the constituent charges, namely, $`\sigma (p\overline{p})/\sigma (n\overline{n})=(2e_u^2+e_d^2)/(2e_d^2+e_u^2)`$. There is no restriction to specific extremes of $`x`$, nor is there a freedom of fragmentation parameter $`\rho `$.

## IV Summary

In the spirit of Refs. fcgilman ; fcisgur  as illustrated for DVCS and wide angle Compton scattering (WACS) in Ref. fcqz1 , one can argue for the effective dominance of the incoherent diagrams, and the ability to interpret wide-angle $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$ by non-forward distributions, as in Refs. weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; freund . There is, however, no dynamical reason to require the dominance of $`x1`$ configurations.

Meanwhile, note the link between the effective destruction of $`_{ij}e_ie_j`$ terms and the absence of exotic exchanges in the crossed channel fcgilman ; fcisgur . This necessarily imposes constraints on the relative magnitudes of $`\gamma \gamma A\overline{A}`$. In particular, under the kinematic circumstances of Refs. diehl ; brodsky  $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{})/\sigma (\gamma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0)=1`$. These results can be generalized to physical baryons and give the relations for listed in Ref. diehl , but where the above arguments would imply that $`\rho `$ in Eq. (43) of diehl  simply counts the relative number of $`d`$ and $`u`$ valence quarks in a proton. Assuming SU(3) flavour symmetry, one thus would have $`\rho =1/2`$ in Eq. (43) of Ref. diehl-1 .

In summary, duality enables us to generalise the results of Refs. weiss ; diehl ; diehl-1 ; freund . In regions where pQCD is able to support “local” dominance of leading twist “handbag” diagrams, quark-hadron duality shows that such diagrams dominate certain ratios of cross sections if averaged over $`s`$ such that direct channel resonances of opposite symmetry types destructively cancel. As $`s\mathrm{}`$ where the density of states is high, this is expected to happen locally, and the results of pQCD arise. At the other extreme, namely the region where individual resonances dominate locally, cancelling only when the resonance region is suitably averaged fcisgur ; ijmv , such cancellations will not arise and the coherent effects dominate. At intermediate $`s`$, as here, where the density of resonances rapidly saturates, the cancellations are rather local and the handbag dominance becomes effective. Thus in summary, we support the hypothesis that the incoherent probability description is valid. In particular, there is no necessary restriction to the $`x1`$ limit.

It is also worth noting that our model is manifestly symmetric by construction and implicitly has $`\rho =1/2`$ diehl-1  and hence the ratio of $`p\overline{p}`$ to $`n\overline{n}`$ is 3/2. A realistic picture would require extension to include spin and single gluon exchange, or symmetry breaking effects. However, this goes beyond our immediate aims which were to give some underpinning of the arguments for application of handbag phenomenology to $`p\overline{p}\gamma \gamma `$.

## Acknowledgements

We thank P. Kroll, C. Weiss and A.V. Radyushkin for helpful discussions about their work. This work is supported, in part, by grants from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, and the EU-TMR program “Eurodafne”, NCT98-0169, and the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant No. GR/M82141).