4 ms·

I haven't read the article yet, but I want to say that (so far) this is no actual proof that radioactive decay is random. There is evidence for it, and we assum

I haven't read the article yet, but I want to say that (so far) this is no actual proof that radioactive decay is random. There is evidence for it, and we assume it is, but it hasn't been proven.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
True. There's a whole debate about determinism in the universe, which includes radioactive decay. It's just one of those things that's considered roughly as random as it gets.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  That's not really true. The Bells inequality experiments have proven (falsified) that there are no local hidden variables. The vast majority of scientists are not willing to throw away causality by accepting nonlocal hidden variables. In other words the true randomness of quantum Events has been broadly accepted to reflect reality.
dahart 4y ago
The article agrees, but of course it’s making a slightly different point and talking about what kinds of randomness are practically or even theoretically predictable today given what we know. Since nobody knows how to predict radioactive decay, it’s currently considered “truly” random, but its status could change in the future. “Arguably then, from a truly omniscient perspective, nothing, not even the physical world, is truly random—it is in the nature of causality that everything that happens has a chain of prior events that caused it. But in practice, for most real-world randomness, obtaining such an omniscient perspective is infeasible to the point of being impossible.”
SideQuark 4y ago
There can be no proof, in the mathematical sense, of anything about the physical world, so radioactive decay being provably random in the most tested, accurate model of the world we have is as close to certainty as anything known about the physical world. Semi-related is this year's Nobel Prize for experiments showing Bell's Theorem is physically true. This rules out hidden variable theories.
- amelius 4y ago
  Hmmm. First you say that there can be no proof of anything about the physical world. Then you tell about a Nobel prize for showing Bell's Theorem is physically true ...
  - Timon3 4y ago
    You left out the parts which answer your question. GP specifically wrote: > There can be no proof, in the mathematical sense, of anything about the physical world[...] followed by: > Semi-related is this year's Nobel Prize for experiments showing Bell's Theorem is physically true. The first quote refers to "mathematical proof", the second to "physical proof". They are different categories.
    - amelius 4y ago
      Ok, what is a physical proof then, apart from strong evidence?
      - atoav 4y ago
        Physical proof is not the same as mathematical proof. It is strong evidence for a mathematical model to be an adequate description of reality. But that means we did not proof that the mathematical model is reality. There might be some weird edge case looming around the corner under which our model utterly fails to describe the physical world. Then we have to adjust the model or find a new one.
      - icegreentea2 4y ago
        Mathematical proofs are in escapable conclusions of your choice of axioms (assumptions). Negative physical proofs is evidence showing that a particular model (assumption) about the physical world does not hold. Negative physical proofs are relatively straightforward. Take your model, make a prediction, and then show the prediction is untrue in the physical world. This is more or less how the Bell Inequality test was supposed to be. Positive physical proofs (for example, prove that radioactive decay is random), is in general not "actually possible". We can only show that physical reality is sufficienty compatible with your model.

I haven't read the article yet, but I want to say that (so far) this is no actual proof that radioactive decay is random. There is evidence for it, and we assume it is, but it hasn't been proven.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

True. There's a whole debate about determinism in the universe, which includes radioactive decay. It's just one of those things that's considered roughly as random as it gets.

cycomanic 4y ago
That's not really true. The Bells inequality experiments have proven (falsified) that there are no local hidden variables. The vast majority of scientists are not willing to throw away causality by accepting nonlocal hidden variables. In other words the true randomness of quantum Events has been broadly accepted to reflect reality.

dahart 4y ago

The article agrees, but of course it’s making a slightly different point and talking about what kinds of randomness are practically or even theoretically predictable today given what we know. Since nobody knows how to predict radioactive decay, it’s currently considered “truly” random, but its status could change in the future. “Arguably then, from a truly omniscient perspective, nothing, not even the physical world, is truly random—it is in the nature of causality that everything that happens has a chain of prior events that caused it. But in practice, for most real-world randomness, obtaining such an omniscient perspective is infeasible to the point of being impossible.”

SideQuark 4y ago

There can be no proof, in the mathematical sense, of anything about the physical world, so radioactive decay being provably random in the most tested, accurate model of the world we have is as close to certainty as anything known about the physical world. Semi-related is this year's Nobel Prize for experiments showing Bell's Theorem is physically true. This rules out hidden variable theories.

amelius 4y ago
Hmmm. First you say that there can be no proof of anything about the physical world. Then you tell about a Nobel prize for showing Bell's Theorem is physically true ...
- Timon3 4y ago
  You left out the parts which answer your question. GP specifically wrote: > There can be no proof, in the mathematical sense, of anything about the physical world[...] followed by: > Semi-related is this year's Nobel Prize for experiments showing Bell's Theorem is physically true. The first quote refers to "mathematical proof", the second to "physical proof". They are different categories.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Ok, what is a physical proof then, apart from strong evidence?
    - atoav 4y ago
      Physical proof is not the same as mathematical proof. It is strong evidence for a mathematical model to be an adequate description of reality. But that means we did not proof that the mathematical model is reality. There might be some weird edge case looming around the corner under which our model utterly fails to describe the physical world. Then we have to adjust the model or find a new one.
    - icegreentea2 4y ago
      Mathematical proofs are in escapable conclusions of your choice of axioms (assumptions). Negative physical proofs is evidence showing that a particular model (assumption) about the physical world does not hold. Negative physical proofs are relatively straightforward. Take your model, make a prediction, and then show the prediction is untrue in the physical world. This is more or less how the Bell Inequality test was supposed to be. Positive physical proofs (for example, prove that radioactive decay is random), is in general not "actually possible". We can only show that physical reality is sufficienty compatible with your model.