Radioactive Decay Not Random?

I don't think it's the randomness of decay, but the speed that seems to flux with radiation density, the nature of which is still being explored.....

It is well established that decay rates are affected by conditions.

.

Chemical bonds affect decay rates. The effects are reliable but quite small. The effect is large enough to detect in in some small nuclei beta decay, usually electron capture. Differing chemical bonds have the effect of either making the electrons most often captured, more or less available.

.

Very closely related to chemical bonds affecting decay rates, degree of ionization can be seen to affect decay rates. Some nuclei that are otherwise stable will beta decay with sufficient ionization.

.

Also, decay rates appear to be significantly altered from our perspective by the speed of the particle. This ceases to be a change in decay rates, if relativistic considerations are noted.

.

Exposure to a significant flux of neutrons, thermal or fast, will have significant influence on decay rates and types.

.

Some research even suggests seasonal variability in decay rates of a few radioisotopes. I'm don't know enough about that research to offer an opinion.

Without outside influences, the decay appears to be random. But it has been know for years that outside effects will influence decay; that's why nuclear reactors and atomic bombs work - the emission of radiation (high energy photons and particles) from nearby sources can cause a chain reaction.

Likewise it has been known for some time that solar flares can effect radioactive decay rates.

Given that information, where do we turn to find a constant for time keeping ??

Granted the rate change might be small and possibly predictable, but - - ?

Geologic time is not measured by the cesium clock, it is measured by the assumed/presumed constant rate of decay of isotopics in a series that begins with Uranium and ends with Lead, or some other series of relatively stable isotopes.

The issue at hand is similar to light emission by stimulated emission of radiation (The Einstein Theory), lasers are the result. In fact while studying exited states of magnesium atoms, I learned that the decay constant was not constant (and that is only an electronic state), but had the appearance that two excited state atoms were "bumping" into each other and causing both to emit light at the same time. I have wondered something similar with respect to the nuclides.

IF the sun is emitting a high energy "super-photon", it may be possible to have direct excitation of nuclear states (not just electronic states) of matter. Thusly, these excited states of the nucleus may have just enough energy to be more likely to decay. If that nucleus is being used for a time ruler, then someone just made the ruler tell us it is longer than it actually is. (could be handy in some situations).

One set of data only refers a single X-ray event, whilst the data is over a long period of days, and the second set of data appears to be for a single day. Are they sure the changes (evident) in the data are strongly correlated with X-ray flux?

The whole thing about the decay rate slowing down bothers me, but that might depend on the actual energy present on the nuclide under study. Perhaps it only changes a nuclear quantum state that has better stability characteristic than the ground state? Did something happen to the ⁵⁴Mn chemical environment during this test? No data? Suppose some other element present (don't know what is actually present during the test) is affected by the X-rays, and the general flux of background particles decreases? Could this result in a longer half-life? Maybe.

"....They all tell the same story. I am showing BNL's data here as being representative of what others are seeing, not only in ⁵⁴Mn decay rates, but ³¹Si,...."

.

Okay, now this really is getting strange. Are you absolutely certain the graphs you have shown are also representative of what others are seeing in ³¹Si?

³¹Si decays by beta minus emission, whereas ⁵⁴Mn typically decays by electron capture. It seems like the behavior would likely be in opposite directions.

.

.

_{....btw, this is no intended as an insult to you, what you have written, or the graphs you provided. This is just an honest observation and inquiry.}

Just a note, the writing is very small, but as best I can tell, the graph you provided does not compare 'Super-K's measurements of solar neutrino flux' to '⁵⁴Mn decay rate'.

.

It appears to compare 1/[distance to the center of the sun]² to '⁵⁴Mn decay rate'. While that would seem to be a rough approximation of the neutrino flux, it isn't a measurement of that flux.

.

I would be wary of reading much into correlation, or a lack thereof, between a measurement and a rough approximation.

"....Note from BNL's plot that the rate first accelerates (a shorter half-life),...."

.

The decay rate does not 'first accelerate'. Lower plots on the graph indicate lower rates of decay. The data points did not deviate from the trend upward, which would have indicated an increase in decay rate relative to the trend. The deviation was below the trend, indicating lower count rate/lower decay rate.

You'd have to eliminate a bunch of atoms for a lower decay rate to coincide with a shorter half life.

I don't think time is defined by radioactive decay rates; it is by so many wavelengths of light from a cesium isotope.

-withdrawn :))

If this fluctuation in decay rate has been going on since our solar system formed,and before,the present method of carbon dating will have to be recalculated,and at best estimated.

Fluctuations might add some uncertainty, but not much. If the fluctuations are regular, and the base is not trending, there might not be much of an effect at all.

Radioactive dating, whether it is carbon or not, will always include some uncertainty.

"Radioactive dating, whether it is carbon or not, will always include some uncertainty."

Yup, and it's completely useless for dating anything that was on the surface of the planet (or in the shallow depths of the oceans) in the late 1930's/early 1940's or later. All the reference points changed then, and inconsistently across the planet.

That's a mighty big pot you're stirring, but a very interesting observation!

Could be that our paleontologists now have a huge conundrum on their desks....

'...then how is it they interact with radioactive substances so readily?...'

.

With the largest observed changes being quite small, and the vast numbers of neutrinos passing through all the time, describing the interaction as occurring 'so readily' might be overstating it a little.

.

Beta decays of various types invariably, with the suggested exception of double beta decay, involve either a neutrino or anti-neutrino. When the reaction is written for beta-minus decay, an anti-neutrino is also shown being emitted to make it balance. For beta-plus, positron emission, a neutrino is shown being emitted to keep it balanced.

.

The electron, being the antiparticle of the positron, allows for the same decay to occur by capture rather than emission. Beta-minus capture looks like positron-emission in all the other aspects. If it weren't for the relative rarity of having positrons around to avail capture, beta-minus decay and positron capture would almost certainly exhibit this interchangeability.

.

If anti-neutrinos are indeed the antiparticle of neutrinos, which I believe is the current idea but the difficulty in working with neutrinos has made supporting/disproving slow, it would follow that an incident neutrino could obviate the need for an anti-neutrino to be emitted and thereby motivate the decay to a lower energy level. This supported by the isotope decays that are noted as showing variability related to changes in the sun being beta-minus, since the sun produces mostly neutrino, and comparatively few anti-neutrinos.

.

It might be possible to test this out by measuring decay rates of isotopes that decay by positron emission/beta-capture in close proximity, but outside secondary shielding, to a large nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors give off a lot of anti-neutrinos. Variations might be measurable prior to start up, after a lengthy shut down, as compared to what should be faster decay rates once the plant has been at high power for a little while. Any nuclear reactor here on Earth is pretty puny compared to the sun, but perhaps even outside the secondary shielding, the proximity would allow enough antineutrinos to create a detectable difference in decay rates.

Wow. I had no idea suggesting you might have overstated the effect a little would set you off so easily.

.

Unfortunately, your 'ratio 1.53100e21 more events per day per atom', doesn't make things clear. It isn't even clear what you are trying to get at.

.

More events per day per atom? Just a reality check here, if the 'event; you are referencing is radioactive decay, the figure you have touted is off by at least 22 orders of magnitude, because it would be impossible to have an increase greater than 1 event per atom, regardless of the time constraint.

.

54Mn decays to 54Cr which is stable. So at most an increase to one even per whatever timeframe per atom would be possible.

.

Offering meaningless ratios that you haven't vetted for common sense is a pretty stupid way to try to support a claim that I 'didn't do the math'.

.

You need to start backing up the bs claims you make. You find one article that draws a comparison between the equivalence of beta minus capture/positron emission and the possibility that anti-neutrino emission might be similarly satisfied by neutrino capture, as an explanation of the variations in beta decays with solar cycles. I didn't paraphrase anything.

.

I think you are upset because I offered a plausible explanation for something you posited as a mystery. We have been round and round about this before. It is absurd. There is no slight to you in offering an explanation to something you see as mysterious. It doesn't make you less intelligent, or your question less interesting.

.

.

Back to your accusations that I was not interpreting and merely paraphrasing..... even in the graph you show, you should not that the decay rate change is not severe. It is rather small. The fact that the change was noted by measuring variations in very high counts does not mean that the large numbers that the difference was measured in equates to a large change in the decay rate.

.

The changes remain very small. The number of neutrinos passing through each cc of material is incredibly vast compared to the number of decays even in total.

.

.

Take a moment to rethink this. My comment is completely reasonable and it is not an insult to you. I expect you will unfuq yourself in quick order and do the right thing.

Thank you for clarifying. It is at least possible to see where you are coming from now that I realize you were not referencing decay events per atom of radioisotope measured per some arbitrary time.

.

I still don't agree that what you have laid out demonstrates this couldn't be described accurately as having at most a small effect.

.

Throwing in neutrino detectors certainly feels more like an attempt to obfuscate than it does to clarify. Although I think the tie in to neutrinos seems to have merit, it is far from clear. It might have been a good tactic, because I am not familiar enough with neutrino detectors to comment on whether it is reasonable to make straight across the board comparisons with detection of something so much easier, i.e. >800KeV photons, but that wasn't what you flipped a lid about, initially. You criticized my comment that the overall effect is rather small. I never made the claim that the overall effect was rather small in relation to variations in neutrino flux.

.

So, unless you also want to clarify your accusation to relate to something I didn't actually say, we should proceed with what you actually claimed as your reason for suggesting I hadn't evaluated anything, didn't do the math and was paraphrasing without understanding. ....at least that is my understanding of what is appropriate at this point.

.

Here is an easy intuitive thing to look at using your graphs that provides reasonable support for suggesting these effects are rather small, and possibly even that the effect is related to changes in detector sensitivity rather than changes in actual decay rates:

.

Notice on your earler graph that provides a view of more days and isn't zoomed in so close. Note that after the downward excursion, the trend returns fairly quickly to very close to the same slope. It is noteworthy that it also returns pretty quickly, not just to the same slope, but to the same original trend line.

.

Think about that for a moment. It the event could truly be described as a depression in the decay rate, when things returned to 'normal', because during that time fewer of the radioisotope nuclei had decayed, the activity would be greater than it would have been had the depression in decay rate not occurred. So if there was an actual depression of decay rate, after the even was ended, the plot of decay rate, shouldn't merely return to its previous path, it should overshoot. The plot should overshoot the trend line and end up slightly above it, since a delay in decay events once over should have the effect of shifting the plot to the right in the graph you provided.

.

Merely returning to the original trend line, is indicative of this being a minor effect at most...an excursion followed by a return. It is something that might more easily be explained by the even causing a decrease in detector sensitivity than depressing or retarding decays.

.

If the effects on ³¹Si really are in the same direction as you earlier intimated, that would also support the idea that the event causes a decrease in detector sensitivity, or at a minimum the effect not being one of neutrinos/antineutrinos.

Let us think about the kind of detectors being used for ⁵⁴Mn and ³¹Si, along with the dominant decay mechanism.

When detecting the 835kV γ emission due to electron capture to ⁵⁴Cr, one would typically use a scintillation counter. The typical detector will be multiple photomultipliers coupled to a scintillation crystal (or pair of crystals) of NaI (Th doped). There are calibrations of counts made with isotopes which emit a similar energetic particle. The EC half-life of ⁵⁴Mn is reported to be 312 days. Since there are usually detectors with multiple PM tubes, and they use a sophisticated gating system with these, there is little chance of missing an actual event, or conversely, admitting spurious non-events. What I was referring to previously is excitation of ⁵⁴Mn to a nuclear excited state by X particle (not saying what it might be), wherein the excited state has a lower EC cross-section. (Don't ask me how that could be possible, it is only a weak hypothesis). However, if the system is tuned to the specific energetics of "normal" ⁵⁴Cr 835kV γ emission, then it could theoretically miss higher energy events, (or lower ones).

What if alternatively, the ⁵⁴Mn was somehow converted (transmuted) by X particle absorption, into another element/isotope that does not EC decay with the same energy as "normal" ⁵⁴Mn? Then assumptions about the loading of the selected isotope in the experiment is "temporarily" wrong, at least until the metastable species decays back to ⁵⁴Mn?

That is an interesting idea.

.

If 54Mn were transmuted or if it were induced to a metastable nuclear excited state, and either experienced a lower rate of decay or decayed without the gamma emission that would be counted, it would account for the initial depression noted.

.

The features after the initial depression, the leveling out of count rate and then returning to very close to the original trend line, suggest a temporary degradation and subsequent return of the ability to count events; otherwise, had it been a genuine temporary reduction in decay rate, the old trend line should have been overshot as a delay should equate to a shift to the right. However, your suggestion of transmutation or inducing a metastable state, for which decays occur that would not emit a gamma with the range to be counted, could account for the noted behavior, so long as any remaining undecayed isotope or metastable state reverted back to 54Mn at an appropriate rate.

.

It would be hard to account for the leveling out and return to nearly the same trend line without either a degradation in counter performance, or a fleeting conversion wherein decays continued at a similar rate but in a range not measured.

I don't have the knowledge of the actual components as you. However, my first thought when reading this article was: Is it the detector or the process?

Detectors can be somewhat more complicated than the process they measure, with more chance of interaction with an unknown force.

Still, interesting to investigate. A super flare could be devastating in today's world. I'm not sure that 40 hours is enough warning to do anything.

Good idea, I was wondering the same thing. I would have thought someone would have checked for this. The final result is "counts" on a detector. You cannot assume that the change is in the radioactive sample itself.

Gravitrons! :)

Those are a spinning carnival ride.

You can see this effect on some older folks' faces and other parts...definitely drawn downward.

The article is a bit overly sensational. The effect is less than a percent difference and only for transient events. I hardly think it could have any perceptible effect on carbon 14 dating or radiation exposure for cancer patients.

Having said that, it is one of those rare and wonderful cases where scientists find something that truly doesn't fit and opens the door for new science. My guess (I'm certainly not an expert) is that it is due to some quirk in the way the weak force (which is responsible for nuclear decay) reacts with solar neutrinos.

It would be interesting if there were any more developments since 2010.

Okay - enough of the carbon dating stuff - where are all the responses tying this to Global Warming? Temperatures appear to be going up on Earth - the radiation from the Sun is the Earth's source of energy for heating - something odd is now occurring with radiation - sounds like a good scenario to me.

I'm thinking no.if anything sensing tools are picking up more precise data and a lot more of it. you can see how too much data clouds the mind when a room full of scientists announce flight 370 is in the southern Indian ocean with not a thread of debris found. they crunched a lot of numbers to support this whacho theory

I have brought this up before,and all of the answers have been found lacking in my opinion.

It is related directly tot the subject matter at hand:Can anything be truly random?

If,according to Newton,every action results in an opposite and equal reaction,then every action must therefor be preceded by an equal and opposite reaction.

And if that is true,"random" cannot exist,and only reactions can occur,all the way back to the beginning primal first action; (what moved the first "domino" to start all the following reactions?)What action made the(BB) singularity unstable?

What we call random is simply our inability to predict a reaction ahead of time.Even a single particle decay has a causative force.

So IMHO,"random" is a cop-out if you believe in a "cause and effect" universe.

"Randomness" as I define it for my own personal use: Any item in an ensemble has an equal probability of undertaking the "event". For example, consider the following chemical reaction: A + B₂ = AB₂* -> AB + B, which is a reaction between atom A and diatomic molecule B₂ . AB₂* represents the "activated complex", also referred to as transition state. Now allow that in our examination, the reactants only have just enough energy to "go uphill" in potential to reach the transition state. The transition state in this case is endothermic with respect to the reagents, and actually is a saddle-point in the energy surface. The reaction coordinate is given as the approach of A and B₂ so that essentially all motion along this coordinate stops at the saddle point. This is where "randomness" comes in, as there is assumed to be an equal likelihood for the "activated complex" to fall forward, or to fall backward. The calculations following this allowed for quite accurate predictions of reaction rates, and almost was enough for a Nobel prize for Henry Eyring. Random.

That is interesting. Why do you need to tie randomness to 50/50 odds. Wouldn't a process that fell forward only 48%, or even 8% of the time still allow for random outcome?

.

I don't see equal probability as a requirement of randomness. The total from the roll of four standard six-sided dice is still a random outcome even though 14 has the highest probability.

Zero is highest?

four standard six-sided dice....talking about the sum total of the amount displayed on each of the four dice. There are more ways to roll 14 than other totals.

Sorry; I misread.

I could have done a better job by either sticking to two dice or six dice. Four dice just isn't that common.

I suppose it must have something to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. By "fixing" the activated complex (transition state) at the saddle point with zero momentum, that would violation ΔxΔp~2δ (supposed to H-bar, could not find symbol for it). Thus if we only fix the coordinate at the saddle point to Δx->0, then Δp becomes uncertain, and has an equal likelihood of falling over or falling back. The theory works out fine with a 50/50 chance. I am not so sure that probability "bias", i.e. 30/70 has any chance to match up with the data.

Imagine roll two fair dice and multiply the values shown and if the product is odd we write 'o' and if it is even we write 'e'.

If we repeat this process again and again, we will notice that the number of 'e's recorded will trend towards three times the number of 'o's recorded, but isn't the determination of 'e'/'o' still random?

If not, does this mean that the outcomes from more than one random process of certain types can be multiplied to always attain a non-random outcome?

"outcomes from more than one random process of certain types can be multiplied to always attain a non-random outcome"

Surely this excerpt implies that the "random processes" are in fact not random?

I'm having about as much success with your dice-throwing as I had with my first Rubik's cube...(and the second one, to be honest).

So, are you making an argument that rolling a single fair six sided die will yield a non-random outcome?

.

If you have a reliable key to knowing the outcome and can reproduce it six at a time, I'd like to invite you on a little business venture in Vegas.

Well. a single die will yield a random number within the limits 1-6.

I'm not ther one you want to be at the table with you...I just say a little prayer, and let go....mind you, that's random I guess...

The outcome of a single roll is "random" because not enough information is available at the time.
If every variable was considered and factored into it,the outcome could be predicted at some point in the process.
As time progressed from the point of release until the point of rest increased, less information is needed to predict the outcome.Therefor more information is needed from the beginning.
A machine could be made to roll a certain die to land a certain way if all variables are controlled.
When you put a human hand into the equation,the calculations become very complex,beyond the present level of computing power.But still,not truly random.Pseudo-random,yes.
But still,every motion that the die makes is influenced at some point by another force or motion.It makes no independent motion.It is not truly random.
Which goes back to my original post.Nothing is truly random.
All action is the result of a previous action,like an elaborate construction of dominoes,that started billions of years ago.
In that sense,everything is predetermined.Even our thoughts,which have been determined to work using Quantum mechanics at some level.
The Schrodinger cat is in a juxtaposition until observed by a sentient being, so the presence of an intelligence is required to create reality.Subjective and objective reality merge.
Perhaps this is a topic more suited to philosophy than science.

Or pseudo philosophy/science.

Touch'e.

But when dealing with quantum science,there is a definite blurring of the lines between science and philosophy and "spooky action",whether at a distance or not,is still very spooky.

"....If every variable was considered and factored into it,the outcome could be predicted at some point in the process...."

.

...and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses so much.

.

The idea of ever being able to accurately know and utilize every variable is not just highly improbable, it also results in a very different universe/situation.

.

Much of quantum mechanics may seem counter intuitive, but the idea of introducing uncertainty doesn't require as much. Things are affected by interaction. Interaction is required for measurement. In the end, knowing all the variables would affect the variables, and so it is not the same situation.

.

Yes, if I allow you to place each of the die on the table as you choose, then the outcome is not random, because you have affected the variables and it is not the same situation. An exaggeration, yes, but not an unfair one.

.

Aside from the improbability of having sensors everywhere measuring everything, even then it is not so straightforward. Each bit of data must have an effect on the world, and so its influence must be accounted for by at least one more bit, which must have an effect on the world....this dynamic system would seem to get hot very quickly.

I have it on good authority that

.

"God does not play dice."

I have to agree with Albert.He does not play dice, but He doesn't care about our
inability to understand the dynamics of His game.
The point I am making is,in fact,our inability to understand all the factors as the dynamics of the process increases.
This does not equal random in my opinion.
Random,means to me at least,a non repeatable, non trend able,non predictable sequence of events that occurred for no reason.
And everything in our known universe has a reason for it's behavior,some of which are beyond our current grasp,and are likely to remain a carrot on a stick.
But it keeps us moving forward,and the pursuit of the carrot is the key to our progress.
I have learned more in my pursuit of the answer than from the answer itself.

Our understanding of 'random' differs in many aspects except 'non-predictable'.

.

I will suggest that our current inability to understand all the factors may not be exclusively a function of what we don't yet know. The complete dynamics might not be something that can be absolutely known.

.

The double slit experiment fairly unambiguously demonstrates that the dynamics of a measured system and an unmeasured system are not equivalent. I don't think any systems are closed in the absolute sense, save one possibly, and I don't think it is possible to monitor every factor in the universe. That would seem to keep absolute specific accurate prediction of certain types of events forever in the realm of theory.

Consider this:

Nothing is real on an individual level until it is observed in one form or the other by our 5 senses.

Disconnect the brain from all inputs,and reality disappears.So in effect,we create our own reality via our senses.

And therein is our limitation.

Even X Rays and infrared have to be down-shifted into a visible realm for us to see them.

Yet we know that some animals see in infrared,and with sound.It is simply a matter of frequency of the signal.

There are probably many frequencies of which we are unaware,as was the case hundreds of years ago,before the electromagnetic spectrum was discovered.

Imagine the ridicule one would endure during that time period if he spoke of seeing and talking with someone on the other side of the world using a small hand held device.

Yet the spectrum had existed since the begining of the universe,unmindful or our awareness.

Our lack of understanding has no bearing.

I will not constrain what we may learn in the future based on the amount that we know now.

The future is wide open to and beyond our imagination.

To disavow any constraint on what might be learned is to deny all that is presently known.

In as much as anything can be known, it constrains the possibility that it is not true.

To place a limitation on future knowledge is an exercise which has been proven historically to be short sighted.

I do not claim that mankind will one day have all the answers,for we are but a speck in the macrocosm of the universe.

But I do think that we will know more tomorrow that we know today.

And the things that we consider inalienable facts will wither under the long gaze of time.

But getting back to the original principle of action-interaction,there must have been a single,original event that triggered everything.

Perhaps the Singularity has a critical mass,at which point it explodes.When the last photon is sucked into the last super-massive black hole, the process will begin all over again.( This of couse,is assuming (hate that word) a closed universe).

Isn't the suggestion that it is futile to attempt to place a limitation on future knowledge, itself an attempt to place a limitation on future knowledge?

IMHO:No.

Only 1 of over 7 Billion opinions.

Depends on how you look at it..

Ultimately,it does not matter.

All is futile.

Omniscience is boring as hell, so you can bet your sweet bippy that on High they do use randomizing devices. That was Einstein's second greatest mistake.

There is of course more than one way that a prohibition on 'God playing dice' might come about. One would be the absence of dice, but that isn't the only sine qua non.

Dice are not absent, but a certain player might be.

That possibility seems the most probable.

Does not the fact that the calculations you mentioned were somewhat predictive not eliminate "true" randomness?

From a purely logical point of view,randomness,by definition, should not be predictable by any means.

The fact that the calculations were useful provides prima facie evidence that randomness is an illusion.

The flip of a coin has a 50-50 chance of being heads or tails.

But this presumes a balanced universe,with equal odds for each event.

I do not have any ego-equity in this subject,and I am willing to accept a valid logical explanation of true randomness.

I will agree that there are processes at work that we cannot explain or are too complicated to understand.If we had sufficient computing power,we could predict,on a molecular level,the movement of every molecule in a rain cloud.

Impossible at the present time, but with the future of quantum computing lying ahead, who knows.

The Butterfly Effect may one day be analysed,with traceable logic, as the cause of hurricanes in the Atlantic.(However,why the Butterfly flaps his wings is another matter entirely).

The prediction is related to the trend and the trend is not random.

The randomness is in an individual outcome.

Useful predictions can be made about the sum total from rolling ten six-sided die. The total will be more than nine and less than 61. The most likely total is 35. But those predictions do not give any insight into which of the six numbers the first die to hit the table will come to rest at.

I will agree that there are processes at work that we cannot explain or are too complicated to understand.If we had sufficient computing power,we could predict,on a molecular level,the movement of every molecule in a rain cloud.

Using the same logic, all actions in the world, even the universe, are predetermined.

So where is the logical flaw in that line of logic?

I see none if one follows the basic principles of Newton.

I realize that the laws of Newton do not agree with quantum mechanics,and thus far reconciliation has not occurred.Perhaps that is where the answer lies.

Certain aspects of quantum mechanics do not follow common logic and border on the edge of fantasy,such as the quantum computer that solves a problem before it is even entered.It could even do it before it is built,simply by thinking of building it.

Reality may be part subjective,and part objective,with interaction between the two.

"...I have brought this up before,and all of the answers have been found lacking in my opinion...."

.

Well, this is your thread... If you think each of the answers is suffering from a lack of you opinion, by all means, get busy opining on the various answers.

.

.

Okay, all kidding aside...well mostly aside... the difficulty you have noted of providing a satisfying answer would seem to be a good argument that randomness isn't merely possible, but that it is difficult to exclude while maintaining real world utility.

.

.

"Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful" - George E.P. Box

.

George has provided us with a metamodel, that while still essentially wrong, can be quite useful.

.

The idea that something might be purely non-random is not even all that certain. If you look closely, the reasoning supporting calling something non-random could be fairly criticized as circular logic, given our heavy slant toward categorizing experience in patterns. We provide a lot of wiggle room for calling certain events or items 'the same thing' and excluding others, which is understandable since this model has been so useful. The model is still wrong.

.

It is through the impression of sameness on different items and events that the very useful idea of non-randomness.

.

Imagine you are given three pictures to consider:

.

-the first picture is of a traditional Florida Cracker style house built in old growth high pines. Particular emphasis is given to the structure, the largest long leaf pine, and the buildup of pine-straw.

.

-the second picture is of a ranch style brick home built in the foothills. Particular emphasis is given to the structure, a recently turned mound of the local red clay, and the mountain and stream in the background.

.

-the third picture is a traditional Japanese Shoji. Particular emphasis is given to the structure, a steaming bowl of food and bamboo and rice being grown in the background.

.

You are asked to find, choosing among the emphasized items, the three groups that are closest to being 'the same thing'. Try not to exclude any emphasized items.

.

.

One way to answer this is to say that the like items are already grouped in the separate pictures. The cracker house is constructed from wood from pine trees and the pine needles are a product of the pine trees. The bricks are fired clay which is an erosion product like that being produced by the stream on the mountain. The Shoji and the steaming bowl of rice and bamboo shoots are both produced by the crops in the background.

.

That the preceding would not likely be the most common answer, and that other solution can be reasonably argued, should give some indication that the perspective that believe in so strongly may not be sufficiently absolute, or at least not accurately so, for claims that 'nothing is truly random' to carry much weight. Of course counter examples can be found when categorization is arbitrary and the definition of 'truly' is nebulous.

.

.

Last quick points. A process can be affected or skewed by an outside influence without losing the randomness of the individual outcomes. Moreover, specific outcomes need not be all of equal probability for randomness.

Here is a link to the quantum computer that solves a problem without running:

(Well,sort of,by using quantum-interrogation methods).

Still,it lies outside of common logic.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uoia-qcs022106.php

With most of the universe being composed of dark matter and dark energy,WE are really the ghost in the machine.

We may never know what is really going on in our universe.

But how do they know the answer was correct and not just a random output that 'looked good' so 'we'll take that one.'

Every teacher I had that dealt with a subject involving formulas or algorithms had the stipulation 'Show ALL your work, no shortcuts,' it was less important that we got the right answer (being off because we juxtaposed two digits when copying a number from one line to the next) then that we understood what we were doing and how we were doing it. We were expected to know what the answer was in broad strokes before reaching for the calculator, and the calculator was just to confirm our work, not do the work for us.

If they run the search again, will they get repeatable results that prove their system works, or does the 'quantum fuzzy logic interference' of reading the final result change the conditions so that the data being searched/not searched is altered so that the next search/not search will reveal a different result/show that the data ha spontaneously reorganized?