Physical processes can be compared to a lottery. This article compares natural physical events to artificial ones created by man’s intervention. Manmade physical processes like a lottery cannot be perfectly random. Pure random behavior can only occur in nature without manmade intervention. Said another way all manmade lotteries have a nonrandom bias. The best that can happen is to contrive a lottery that converges on pure random behavior. This article explains why manual intervention invariably results in pseudorandom bias. In this article the label pseudorandom applies to any process occurring in nature that requires man’s intervention. The article asserts that Repulsion Gravity can be viewed as the element in nature that causes true randomness. Physical processes like Brownian Motion represent pure random behavior. This article compares random to pseudorandom behavior.
Physical processes can be compared to a lottery. This article compares natural physical events to artificial ones created by man’s intervention. Manmade physical processes like a lottery cannot be perfectly random. Pure random behavior can only occur in nature without manmade intervention. Said another way all manmade lotteries have a nonrandom bias. The best that can happen is to contrive a lottery that converges on pure random behavior. This article explains why manual intervention invariably results in pseudorandom bias. In this article the label pseudorandom applies to any process occurring in nature that requires man’s intervention. The article asserts that Repulsion Gravity can be viewed as the element in nature that causes true randomness. Physical processes like Brownian Motion represent pure random behavior. This article compares random to pseudorandom behavior.
In this article, it is shown specifically that natural system chance events as represented by theory predicted (a priori) probabilistic statements used in such realms as modern particle physics, among others, are only random relative to the restricted language of the theory that predicts such behavior. It is shown that all such "chance" natural events are related one to another by a remarkably designed, systematic and wondrous collection of equations that model how the natural laws and processes specifically yield such natural events. A second result shows theoretically that all such "chance" behavior is caused by application of well-defined ultralogics. These results show specifically that the fundamental underlying behavior associated with all natural systems that comprise our universe is controlled internally by processes that cannot be differentiated from those that mirror the behavior of an infinitely powerful mind.
Randomness is a scarce and precious resource: cryptography, scientific simulation, gambling regulation, and even foundational physics all depend on being able to produce numbers that no one — not even the generator itself — could have predicted in advance. Classical computers cannot create such numbers on their own, because they are deterministic machines; every pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) is, in principle, a fixed algorithm whose entire output is fixed the moment a seed is chosen. Quantum random number generators (QRNGs) promise something categorically different: unpredictability guaranteed by the indeterminism of quantum measurement itself. This paper examines whether “true” randomness is achievable at all, surveys the physical arguments (rooted in Bell's theorem) that quantum measurement outcomes are not merely unknown but undetermined, and then asks a narrower, more computational question: can a machine-learning model tell the difference between the output of a well-designed PRNG and genuine entropy? We built and tested a small experimental pipeline comparing a deliberately flawed linear-congruential generator, a mildly weak variant, two industry-standard PRNGs (Mersenne Twister and PCG64), and operating-system entropy (as an accessible proxy for physically-sourced randomness). Gradient-boosted and logistic-regression classifiers detected the flawed generator with 100% accuracy but could not beat chance (49–51%) against modern PRNGs, mirroring published results in the cryptographic and quantum-optics literature. We conclude that while true randomness is very plausibly achievable through quantum processes certified by Bell-inequality violation, no black-box statistical or machine-learning test — however sophisticated — can, on principle, certify the difference between a good PRNG and true randomness from output alone; the distinction is one of provenance and physical mechanism, not detectable pattern.
It is argued that realism and true randomness are fully compatible. Realistic true random events are acts of pure creation that obey strict laws, but do not necessarily satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms of probabilities. Realistic true randomness is some sort of nondeterministic force, or propensity of physical systems to manifest such and such properties under such and such conditions. Realistic random events reflect preexisting properties, as required by realism, simply the reflection is not deterministic; still, the preexisting properties determine the propensities of the different possible events. It is argued that deterministic extensions of quantum physics are necessarily incompatible with special relativity. Hence, from today's violations of Bell's inequalities one can conclude that all future physics theories will display true randomness as does quantum physics. It is argued that accepting true randomness and realism leads to new questions with interesting answers, allowing one 1) to study nonlocality in configurations with many independent sources and 2) to bound how much free will is needed for a proper violation of Bell's inequality.
This article explores the existence of true randomness in the universe, challenging traditional mechanistic and deterministic viewpoints. The article begins by demonstrating the random waviness of electrons without external forces through the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the random distribution when individual electrons are imaged on a screen. It then discusses the theory of hidden variables, which suggests that there are undiscovered variables that could explain the deterministic motion of particles. However, experimental results from Bell's inequality have refuted this theory, proving the correctness of quantum mechanics. The article also mentions nonlinear systems in the macro world, such as the three-body problem in chaos theory, illustrating the uncertainty in the macro world. Finally, the article further explains the counterintuitive and random behavior of particles in quantum mechanics through anti-reflective film and delayed-choice experiments, emphasizing that randomness is ubiquitous even in the macro world. The article concludes that although the universe is full of randomness, this does not mean it is unknowable; humans can still understand and control these random phenomena through probability theory.
A simple experimental setup to produce true random numbers is described. The experiment involves measuring successive times between decays of a radioactive source. We discuss two different ways of comparing these times: one that generates a string of random zeros and ones, and another that produces numbers derivable from the permutation group. It is shown that the methods used in the experiment produce the same results for any random process and can therefore be used as a test for randomness in other physical systems.
In this paper the concept random is investigated, for the notable reason that it is based on probability rather than determinism. Is the question relevant Can there be an alternative explanation Are experiments biased by the theory The random movement of particles in fluids is called Brownian motion. When particles in a fluid collider with fast-moving molecules the result is a random motion of these particles. The motion is not deterministic, i. e. the particles have what is called a random walk. At the fundamental level there are flows of packages, e. g. rivers or winds that carry the smaller particles from one place to another, i. e. aRb. The validity of the random theories cannot be proven in any experiments, since the circumstances are manipulated according to the theory. Within aRb it is Nature that decides, i. e. at the fundamental level, while at the surface level chaotic motion is admitted. Imagine sliding down a helter-skelter, wobbling from side to side, but still on your way down. The conclusion: 1. The Brownian motion, i. e. why particles move, depends on the flow of packages in nature.2. The question concerning Brownian motion is not relevant.3. The Kinetic Theory has to be discussed.