Doesnt the quantum zeno effect dissallow the possibility of randomness?

[jadrian]

if a nucleus decays at random, it should be impossible to effect that in any way and if observered, you are effecting something that is by definition supposed to be random.

for example if i am a particle and have true randomness, then being observed at certain intervals, probability would dictate that there was a time in between observations that i would eventually decay.

since a single observation does not stop eventual decay, it has do be concluded that the observations are not stealing any randomness from the particle unless you assume that randomness grows back? somebody explain that to me.

the only way i can reconcile the zeno effect is that since observation/energy addition to a nucleus can effect its rate of decay, then the nucleus must need to in some way grow back its randomness? i think the observation is holding the nucleus from being effected by the true cause of its decay, which we will never see, and that the zeno effect is a huge blow to the idea that randomness can exist

 

[eljose79]

in physical systems

I understand your confusion and concerns about the concept of randomness in particle decay. However, there are a few key points that I would like to clarify.

Firstly, the idea of true randomness is a philosophical concept and cannot be proven or disproven in the physical world. In science, we use probability to describe and predict the behavior of particles, but this does not necessarily mean that the particles are truly random. It simply means that we cannot predict their exact behavior with certainty.

Secondly, the act of observation does not necessarily affect the randomness of a particle or its eventual decay. It is true that the act of measuring a particle can change its state, but this is due to the interaction between the particle and the measuring device, not because the particle's randomness is being "stolen". The Zeno effect, which describes the phenomenon of repeated observations preventing a particle from decaying, is a result of the interaction between the particle and the measuring device, not because the particle's randomness is being altered.

Lastly, the idea that the nucleus needs to "grow back" its randomness after being observed is not a scientifically valid concept. Randomness is not a physical substance that can be depleted or replenished. It is simply a way of describing the unpredictable behavior of particles.

In conclusion, the concept of randomness in particle decay is complex and can be difficult to understand. However, it is important to remember that in science, we use probability to describe and predict the behavior of particles, and this does not necessarily mean that the particles are truly random. The act of observation does not affect the randomness of a particle, and the Zeno effect is a result of the interaction between the particle and the measuring device, not because the particle's randomness is being altered.