I think that there is a problem with most replies.
If you look at the equations of motion expressed in polar coordinates you get indeed as many have written
$\ddot{r}=r\dot{\theta}^2$ and $F=mr\ddot{\theta}+2m\dot{r}\dot{\theta}$
These equations are perfectly general and hold at all times for a ball in a tube subject only to the normal force $\vec{F}=F \hat{\theta}$ exerted by the tube's wall.
The problem I have lies with the model provided with the initial conditions $r(0)=R$, $\dot{r}(0)=0$ where it is further assumed that right away $\dot{\theta}=\omega$ is constant.
With such a model there seems to be a causality issue and the 'origin' of the radial acceleration becomes essentially question begging.
Indeed, in that case we have the weird situation where the angular motion preexists to the existence of a force from the lateral wall (indeed if $\dot{r}(0)=0$ and $\omega$ is constant then $F=0$ at $t=0$). As far as I am concerned that does not make any sense and this is also clearly unrealistic.
So, I think that one needs a different model than $\dot{\theta}=constant$ to accommodate the given initial conditions.
The simplest physical model I can think of is that of the tube itself being subject to a constant torque with some linear friction. Under the assumption that the ball inside the tube is light enough so that it does not affect much the moment of inertia of the tube, we then get an equation for $\omega(t)$ of the form
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}=\omega_{\infty}\left(1-e^{-t/\tau} \right)
\end{equation}where $\omega_{\infty}$ is related to the magnitude of the torque, the moment of inertia and the friction coefficient and the time scale $\tau$ is related to the ratio of the friction coefficient with the moment of inertia.
With this model we find that $\ddot{\theta}=\frac{\omega_{\infty}}{\tau}e^{-t/\tau}$ so that at $t=0$ we have $\ddot{\theta}=\frac{\omega_{\infty}}{\tau}$ and $\dot{\theta}=0$.
If we were to implement the first two steps of a Eulerian algorithm for integration we would get
Step 0:
\begin{align}
& \dot{\theta}(0)=0, \\
& F(0)= mR\frac{\omega_{\infty}}{\tau}, \\
& \ddot{r}(0) = 0, \\
& \dot{r}(0) = 0, \\
& r(0) = R.
\end{align}
Step 1:
\begin{align}
& \dot{r}(\Delta t)= \dot{r}(0) + \ddot{r}(0)\Delta t = 0, \\
& \dot{\theta}(\Delta t) = \dot{\theta}(0) + \ddot{\theta}(0)\Delta t = \frac{F(0)}{m R} \Delta t \neq 0,\\
& F(\Delta t)= mR\frac{\omega_{\infty}}{\tau} \left(1-\frac{\Delta t}{\tau} \right) \\
& \ddot{r}(\Delta t) = R \dot{\theta}^2(\Delta t) = \frac{F(0)^2}{m^2 R}\Delta t^2
\end{align}
The geometry of the problem is such that, to first order, the force in the angular direction is going to generate a non-zero angular velocity at time $\Delta t$, which in turn will give rise to a non-zero radial acceleration at time $\Delta t$ but a) of second order in $\Delta t$ and b) only giving rise to a non-zero radial velocity at step $2\Delta t$, thereby illustrating the causal effect between the force generating the angular motion in the tube (basically modelled here as a holonomic constraint) and the delayed effect of that force, owing to its direction being varying, on the radial coordinate.