From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt

Subject: Re: Are there truly random phenomena?
Summary: EPR hidden variable theory is not the only deterministic alternative.
Message-ID: <152@mtnmath.UUCP>
Date: 26 Aug 91 04:16:00 GMT
References: <> <618@tymix.Tymnet.COM>
+           <>
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga, CA 95070
Lines: 43

In article <>, (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> The quantum "randomness" is not merely ASSUMED, it has been DEMONSTRATED
> and thus is a required feature of any such theory.


> I think that recent results have pretty well ruled out "hidden variable"
> quantum theories in the traditional meaning of the phrase.

The experimental evidence against hidden variable theories like Einsten
proposed in EPR has been overwhelming for some time.

> That doesn't
> mean that anybody yet has a really fundamental understanding of where
> the apparent quantum randomness comes from, but we do have to acknowledge
> that it really is there, and it really is different from what would ensue
> merely from incomplete information of an inherently deterministic system.

If the deterministic system you have in mind is one in which classical
particles have exact values for momentum, velocity etc. this is correct.
A physical theory can be deterministic without making such assignments. It
only needs to show in theory how the outcome of real experiments
are deterministic.

Two radically different classes of models that I am aware of have been
proposed that could lead to a deterministic model for physics. One
is based on chaos theory and one is based on a discrete model for space,
time and the field function. Well neither of these are in a state to
compete with quantum mechanics they illustrate how a radically different
approach to the problem of providing a more complete theory might work.

> Anyway, back to the theme of this newsgroup, according to the best of our
> knowledge, you really can rely on quantum randomness to be truly random.

I am not worried about crypto systems based on quantum randomness
being compromised. However, it is false to claim that quantum randomness
has been conclusively demonstrated or proved and it is unscientific to assume
that there cannot be a more complete theory without such evidence or proof.

Paul Budnik