Experiment re quantum randomness

[SW VandeCarr]

"True' randomness cannot be generated by any efficient algorithm (Kolmogorov) while pseudorandomness can be, such as the apparently random digit sequences of irrational numbers. The experimental realization of quantum states is taken to be an example of 'true' randomness in nature. However, if there is a deterministic substratum to such outcomes, then there apparently would be no 'true' randomness' in nature.

The following paper claims experimental evidence for 'true' randomness in quantum outcomes in the Kolmogorov sense. Since the authors concede they cannot 'prove' true randomness, would this evidence carry weight to those who hold that an underlying deterministic substratum must exist?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1521v1.pdf

 

[Descartz2000]

"True' randomness cannot be generated by any efficient algorithm (Kolmogorov) while pseudorandomness can be, such as the apparently random digit sequences of irrational numbers. The experimental realization of quantum states is taken to be an example of 'true' randomness in nature. However, if there is a deterministic substratum to such outcomes, then there apparently would be no 'true' randomness' in nature.

The following paper claims experimental evidence for 'true' randomness in quantum outcomes in the Kolmogorov sense. While the authors concede they cannot 'prove' true randomness, would this evidence carry weight to those who hold that an underlying deterministic substratum must exist?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1521v1.pdf

I think 'randomness' in any form is a flimsy term. I think 'random' as it relates to acausality, predictability, and deterministically (dependence on prior causes) must be defined more clearly. When one talks of randomness I think this can mean different things to different people.

 

[ZapperZ]

"True' randomness cannot be generated by any efficient algorithm (Kolmogorov) while pseudorandomness can be, such as the apparently random digit sequences of irrational numbers. The experimental realization of quantum states is taken to be an example of 'true' randomness in nature. However, if there is a deterministic substratum to such outcomes, then there apparently would be no 'true' randomness' in nature.

The following paper claims experimental evidence for 'true' randomness in quantum outcomes in the Kolmogorov sense. While the authors concede they cannot 'prove' true randomness, would this evidence carry weight to those who hold that an underlying deterministic substratum must exist?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1521v1.pdf

Please note that in forums other than high energy physics and BTSM, we still require peer-reviewed references as valid sources. Unless you have the exact citation, you should wait until it has been published to make references to it.

Furthermore, they will have an interesting time addressing THIS:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2673066&postcount=106

Zz.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think 'randomness' in any form is a flimsy term.

I'm surprised you would say that in the Quantum Physics forum since QM is grounded in probability theory. In any case, I specified Kolmogorov randomness which is the accepted definition in the computationally based sciences. It is true that a finite character string cannot be definitively said to be 'truly' random. It is a mathematical property of an infinite character string which, if truly random, must contain every possible finite substring (or subsequence). So for example, the decimal expansion of pi is indistinguishable statistically from a random string up to some finite n, but we cannot say it is a random string since it is generated by an efficient algorithm and we only have finite examples.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

S. Pironio et al., "Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem", Nature v.464, p.1021 (2010).

Abstract: Randomness is a fundamental feature of nature and a valuable resource for applications ranging from cryptography and gambling to numerical simulation of physical and biological systems. Random numbers, however, are difficult to characterize mathematically, and their generation must rely on an unpredictable physical process. Inaccuracies in the theoretical modelling of such processes or failures of the devices, possibly due to adversarial attacks, limit the reliability of random number generators in ways that are difficult to control and detect. Here, inspired by earlier work on non-locality-based and device-independent quantum information processing, we show that the non-local correlations of entangled quantum particles can be used to certify the presence of genuine randomness. It is thereby possible to design a cryptographically secure random number generator that does not require any assumption about the internal working of the device. Such a strong form of randomness generation is impossible classically and possible in quantum systems only if certified by a Bell inequality violation15. We carry out a proof-of-concept demonstration of this proposal in a system of two entangled atoms separated by approximately one metre. The observed Bell inequality violation, featuring near perfect detection efficiency, guarantees that 42 new random numbers are generated with 99 per cent confidence. Our results lay the groundwork for future device-independent quantum information experiments and for addressing fundamental issues raised by the intrinsic randomness of quantum theory.

Zz.

Thanks for this citation and abstract. Some forums allow arXiv papers. Sorry about linking it, but I'm not making any claims based on it. I do think it's an interesting read and reflects competence in terms of the computational issues. The PF members can decide how it might apply, if it all, to their particular interests.