Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Be PROUD of hairiness. I'm proud of all the wrong things too.

Be PROUD of randomness.

OK don't. It doesn't matter, it's random.

Wait ... it MIGHT matter.

That one doesn't sound random though.
Cause and effect.

Pattern recognition is unavailable. That might be a tad better than something about predictability?

Pattern recognition is relevant.
Suggestion: multiple defiitions of 'random'.
Random often seems to be defined by its opposites.
'this wasn't by chance'
'somebody caused this'
or: 'this was a consequence of something else - with that else not a human factor or caused by something living'.
or: 'no purpose or physical consequence visible here but there's an apparent pattern'
or: 'lets subject this to statistics and probablity and 'hey we found something!'
-----------------
that could be five 'opposites' right there - leading to five definitions of 'random'.

I think that randomn-

Randomly truncated?

wasn't me, I didn't do nothing ...

I can't resist. It's a classic.

Not sure if I have this in the right thread...? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/first-time-ever-scientists-create-140700952.html

<<Physicists know that quarks are light, yet protons and neutrons are much heavier than the simple sum of their quark masses. Light quarks have masses of only several MeV. In contrast, protons and neutrons weigh in around 1 GeV. That means most of the mass of ordinary matter must come from something else, from the dynamics inside hadrons, not just from the quarks themselves.>>

I know this is not new knowledge but they are gradually getting closer and it's starting to look as if something will come out of it in the next decade. So mass seems to possibly be caused by a self-repelling pressure which becomes weight when interacting with other bodies that have mass. Weight is of course directional force and mass is essentially a tendency of a body towards inertia.

This of course is off the top of my head without thinking about it cos it's bedtime. But I really think they are starting to make meaningful discoveries, in quantum mechanics. Goodnight.

I heard recently that there is the nearest to hard evidence of physics beyond the standard model in the last 50 years coming out of CERN. It's the result of the study of a special type of B-meson decay, which is now 4-sigma divergent from standard model predictions, with more data to come in the coming years.

I was thinking of starting a new in particle physics thread, but there is so little really new! But maybe one result like this is enough.

I'm guessing that 4-sigma there refers to a degree of 'standard deviation' - a basic term in statistics.
Decided to check and yes that's what it is. Before posting - I often fact-check first.
I also asked if 'Chi-squared' is still used. It is.
And also checked on root-mean-square.
Also still used and as I vaguely remembered its different from the standard deviation but related.
x̄ is a sample mean in a distribution. Its used to get to standard deviation.
To get the standard deviation there's a series of steps between x̄ and σ (sigma - the standard deviation) with something called 'variance' in the middle.

Noting: mass is usually not measured in energy units.
But that changes in particle physics - where units such as pounds and kilgorams don't work so well.

@TenGolf-TPOT
I'm adding a couple of points:
While Einstein's work (he started publishing in 1905) led to a conversion of mass/matter into energy in nuclear reactors and bombs - 
later - a british scientist named Patrick Blackett got the Nobel prize for his work (from 1933) that included discovery of 'Pair production'.
Which includes conversion of energy back into mass/matter.
Adding a bit more about terminology:
Matter consists of fermions apparently - and mass refers to measurement of matter.
EM energy consists of bosons. Electromagnetic energy.
-------------
Why point that out?
Here's why: Is there a one word term to refer to that form of energy that is not matter?
Does it mattter?
Point: Since matter is now considered to be a subset of 'energy' - then there ought to be one word for 'the others'. But apparently there isn't.
So there's 'bosons' and 'kinetic energy' and 'potential energy' and so on.
And 'fields'.

I think their is true randomness when old people roll those balls with the numbers on em in that hand crank mixer upper and then pull one out and read off the number. Unless THATS rigged also.

frequency and resonance make the universe go round