Im not sure if random is the best word to use, but im looking for something that occurs without any outside factors playing any part in determining what happens. Cant really think of another way to explain it so ill use an example. If someone flips a quarter, its not exactly a 50/50 chance since one side has more mass than the other. Even if it was a perfectly even coin, the side it lands on would be determined by how hard it is flipped, the surface it lands on, wind, etc… So whats an example of a truly random event?
Radioactive decay perhaps. Though that could be influenced by things we just don’t understand yet.
I think the idea you’re searching for is “chaos”.
The quarter-flip example shows that the event is not completely random because it is influenced by many factors, like the mass distribution, the way it’s flipped, etc.
Those factors are sufficiently complex as to make the event unpredictable, which is what “random” means with respect to statistics.
If you charge a phosphor with energy, it will emit a photon.
You cannot predict which direction the photon will go.
If you set up an experiment with two photon detectors, one left and one right of the phosphor, you can achieve “random” results from each trial of the experience, even if there is, say, a higher chance of the photon hitting the left panel. “Random” doesn’t mean 50/50, necessarily.
So, with these things in mind, can you ask your question again?
~Wolfrick
The photon example is the exact kind of thing that Im looking for, but i was looking more along the lines of something that i could try at home. Ill state the question again:
Whats an example of something that occurs without any factors who contribute to the outcome?
Thats basically the same thing i asked for in the first post, but the phosphor example is the stuff im looking for.
thanks,
culov
The “outside factors” qualification may give you trouble on a purely theoretical level. Even in the photon experiment mentioned above, the measurement act itself is technically an “outside factor.”
How about taping static on a tv, and watching the color bounce from black to white in any one pixel? Assuming your VCR can do frame advance…
(These static patterns are caused by the microwave radiation background from the big bang, which I guess is another outside factor, but I digress.)
Randomness is an illusion, given our level of understanding. Einstien observed, “God does not play dice with the universe.”
But he was proven wrong on that. The entire field of quantum mechanics is based on the idea that god does play dice, and it seems to be holding together pretty well.
But it’s not easy to set up a macroscopic experiment that is completely random. You could try to detect thermal motion or thermal noise, e.g. by observing Brownian motion or measuring the electrical thermal noise (Johnson noise). If you can spend some money for equipment, I’d use a Geiger counter (I’ve seen a kit for under $100). For a source you can use an Am-241 source from a smoke detector, or just pick up the natural background X-rays.
As scr4 mentions, thermal noise in analog electrical circuits is a good method, used in most commercial true random number generators such as these:
No discussion of randomness would be complete without reference to LavaRand. While this is a chaotic system rather than a truly random one, it is a fairly easy setup for producing good random numbers, where “good” describes certain properties you want from a random number generator for different applications.
" Where does randomness exist?"
Eventually, randomness becomes constant & ceases to exist because the randomness is now a constant ?
Thaumautage, has given the best answer so far as radioactive decay is completely random and depends entirley on the half-life of the isotope and not on any external factors. Also the collapse of the wave function (by measuremnet) for a system means that the system will decay randomly into an eigenstate. Truly random systems involve stochastic nature of QM.
Chaotic systems are not truly random, just highly dependant on intial condtions and therfore their predictabilty, if all the factor’s aren’t known is limited.
One other thought? Do you want just random, or equal chances? In basic stats course, they usually define picking a random sample as stating that all the units in the population have to have an equal chance of being picked.
Does this influence any of the items mentioned? Do we want some assurance that the digits being generated (0 to 9) all have an equal chance? Otherwise, if the digit 1 is favored, is it still random?
Time for lunch… 