Is radioactive decay truly random?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of randomness in radioactive decay, particularly whether it is truly random or if there could be underlying patterns that are currently unknown. Participants explore concepts related to quantum mechanics, determinism, and the definitions of randomness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether radioactive decay is truly random or if there could be hidden factors influencing it, questioning the absolute nature of randomness.
  • One participant mentions deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, suggesting that while underlying physics may not be random, predictions cannot be made in the same way as classical mechanics.
  • Another participant raises the issue of defining "random" and "truly random," prompting further exploration of what measurements could distinguish between these concepts.
  • There is a discussion about the autocorrelation function as a method to verify randomness in experimental data, with a suggestion that the complexity of patterns could lead to misinterpretations of randomness.
  • One participant distinguishes between two senses of randomness: one where unpredictability arises from a complex pattern and another where unpredictability stems from a lack of any pattern.
  • A later reply asserts that radioactive decay is unpredictable because there is no underlying pattern, contrasting it with chaotic systems that have complex patterns.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether radioactive decay is truly random or if there could be hidden patterns. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of randomness.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current understanding in quantum mechanics and the challenges in defining and measuring randomness, indicating that the discussion is influenced by the complexity of the topic.

JesW87
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, PeroK and 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?
 
@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.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
JesW87 said:
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).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JesW87

Similar threads

Undergrad The Mystery of Atomic Decay: Is it Truly Random or is There More at Play?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
High School Thought experiment -- A radioactive decay detector and randomness
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Graduate Randomness of radioactive decay
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate What is the cause of radioactive decay?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Definition of a random variable in quantum mechanics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Experiment with gamers, random numbers and entanglement
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
What causes the radioactive decay of an unstable nucleus?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Are Coin Flips Truly Random Like Quantum Systems?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate Can we create a random variable using QED effects?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
High School Is Radioactive Decay Truly Random?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K