Is radioactive decay truly random?

[JesW87]

Before you report this, yes I do know there was already another post like this one, but I don't feel like it fully answered the question.

Note that I really don't know anything about quantum anything, but I'm trying to do some reading up on "randomness" and the consensus seems to be that this, and other quantum mechanical phenomena, are some of the only truly random events in the universe.

What I'm trying to get at is: is this for sure? I mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. As in there does not even exist a 0.00000000000000000001% chance that there is some hidden nature to how these processes work, that if it could be known, would prove that there is some order to them. I'm not saying that being able to predict them would have to be POSSIBLE, but what I am asking is if it is certain that there is no definitive pattern (even if what it is is currently unknown) that causes these kinds of things?

And by random I don't just mean unpredictable, I mean that there is absolutely no pattern of cause and effect for this stuff, even if it is currently unknown.

 

[mfb]

There are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, where the underlying physics is not random. But even there you cannot make predictions in the way classical mechanics would allow.
That is for sure - you can construct inequalities that have to be satisfied if we could make these predictions (Bell's theorem), and you can measure that these inequalities are violated. This has been done over and over again, and we are sure they are violated.

There is always a 0.00000000001% chance of everything. Maybe there is a worldwide conspiracy with the dedicated task of fooling you personally about the results of quantum mechanics. Impossible? No. But too unlikely to be considered.

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. What is the difference between "random" and "truly random"? (And truly truly random, and truly truly truly random, etc.)
2. What measurement would convince you that one or the other is correct?

 

[sophiecentaur]

@JesW87 Do you know how the word "Random" is defined mathematically?
Randomness of a set of experimental data can be verified within limits by looking at the autocorrelation function of the data. The answer for a totally random process is a single peak in the self-correlation. There is always a limit to 'just how random' a set of data is, you have to start an experiment and then finish it and there is always a bandwidth limit so you can only look at so much data to demonstrate it is random.
Are you looking for something 'systematic', underlying the randomness that's been observed experimentally? i.e. something within the peak of the autocorrelation function?
You could be leaping too far into this topic before you are equipped to deal with the present evidence. Looking just beyond established Science takes you into Science Fiction which may be fun but is not Science.

 

[JesW87]

1. What is the difference between "random" and "truly random"? (And truly truly random, and truly truly truly random, etc.)
2. What measurement would convince you that one or the other is correct?

I guess I meant random in two senses:

1. Unpredictable, but with some sort of pattern controlling the behavior (as in something that clearly is not truly random, but the pattern is so complex or contains so many variables that it is just unknowable to us and maybe always will be, however if it could be known it could be predicted)

2. Unpredictable BECAUSE there is no pattern, plain and simple.

I was just trying to determine which of the two radioactive decay is.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess I meant random in two senses:

1. Unpredictable, but with some sort of pattern controlling the behavior (as in something that clearly is not truly random, but the pattern is so complex or contains so many variables that it is just unknowable to us and maybe always will be, however if it could be known it could be predicted)

2. Unpredictable BECAUSE there is no pattern, plain and simple.

I was just trying to determine which of the two radioactive decay is.

It's the second. The first isn't random, it's chaotic (like weather).