Chaos and quantum-nondemolition measurements

The problem of chaotic behavior in quantum mechanics is investigated against the background of the theory of quantum-nondemolition (QND) measurements. The analysis is based on two relevant features: The outcomes of a sequence of QND measurements are unambiguously predictable, and these measurements actually can be performed on one single system without perturbing its time evolution. Consequently, QND measurements represent an appropriate framework to analyze the conditions for the occurrence of ‘‘deterministic randomness’’ in quantum systems. The general arguments are illustrated by a discussion of a quantum system with a time evolution that possesses nonvanishing algorithmic complexity

Randomness? What randomness?

This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In three appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated experiments, review the notion of 1-randomness (or algorithmic randomness) that in various guises was investigated by Solomonoff, Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, and others, and treat Bell's (1964) Theorem and the Free Will Theorem with their implications for randomness

Quantum randomness and value indefiniteness

As computability implies value definiteness, certain sequences of quantum outcomes cannot be computable.Comment: 13 pages, revise

From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin

In 1927 Heisenberg discovered that the ``more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa''. Four years later G\"odel showed that a finitely specified, consistent formal system which is large enough to include arithmetic is incomplete. As both results express some kind of impossibility it is natural to ask whether there is any relation between them, and, indeed, this question has been repeatedly asked for a long time. The main interest seems to have been in possible implications of incompleteness to physics. In this note we will take interest in the {\it converse} implication and will offer a positive answer to the question: Does uncertainty imply incompleteness? We will show that algorithmic randomness is equivalent to a ``formal uncertainty principle'' which implies Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness. We also show that the derived uncertainty relation, for many computers, is physical. In fact, the formal uncertainty principle applies to {\it all} systems governed by the wave equation, not just quantum waves. This fact supports the conjecture that uncertainty implies randomness not only in mathematics, but also in physics.Comment: Small change