On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:43:41 +0000, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>In sci.math message <rubrum-0653B8.firstname.lastname@example.org>, >Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:43:20, Michael Press <email@example.com> posted: >>> The msin assumption in this is that the probability that an >>> atom which has not decayed by time T will still have a probability >>> of decay between T and U which is independent of anything which has >>> happened before time T, and only depends on U-T. > >>I am asking for the basis of the unpredictability >>in physical theory. Assuming it is random is to >>beg the question. >> >>I hold that the wave theory of matter does not >>predict random occurrences. > >Little can be done about ignorance of such profundity. You reject the >mainstream physics of the last 85 years or thereabouts.
It seems like a reasonable question to me.
The completeness with which we understand small-scale physics doesn't affect whether something deterministic is happening under the hood.
If radioactive decay is random, why should an isotope have a knowable half-life? Why wouldn't the half-life also be random, or more variable than it seems to be?