Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

Spacetime is a notion dependent on a belief, that space can be thought of as a "fabric", bending and curving as objects pass through it, effecting the behavior of the object. In a similar sense, the same can be said of the notion for the existence of an aether. 

No. The difference could not be more crucial.

The aether hypothesis leads to false predictions - eg that the speed of light should vary with the motion of the observer. By contrast, no prediction of general relativity has been demonstrated to be false.

That doesn't imply there isn't randomness...

....or this:

Me: I'm going out with summa my friends.

Lord Anti-Random: Uhh, I knew that.

Me: ....and I'm gonna wear my anti-random random club t-shirt.

Lord A-R: I already ironed it for u.   

Me: ....oh (blink blink)

Must be nice to have lord D as your personal assistance : )
the 6' stringy thingy actually help me with visualizing the geodesic grid.

I think that you're right. in the following article Einstein refer to it as 'Ether'. but describe it somewhat as a structure?

Quote:"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

yea king, apples in my sandwich. lol. if you ever like to give it a try, there's a hole in the wall named Ruddell’s Smokehouse just south of you in Cayucos.
they make it like no one else..

A thing about the vacuum which makes it different to any physical material is that it looks exactly the same regardless of the speed you move relative to it.

Interestingly, it is believed that the vacuum does look different when you accelerate relative to it. In fact it has a temperature which is proportional to the acceleration. This is called the Unruh effect. However this temperature is extremely small for achievable accelerations, so has not been detected yet. The Unruh effect is closely related to the phenomenon of Hawking radiation.

And that sandwich looks AWESOME!

Yeah and when you put a Rainbow vacuum up against a Dyson... you get the "ruh-roh" effect! Some say the Rainbow wins... some say the Dyson....

it seem to me that einstein referred to some "magical structure" that remain even in a vacuum.
yea, this sandwich is something else : )
..i see now that you brought this whole QM thingy against true randomness again.. i'll quote it separately so it remain in context..

unfortunately determinism doesn't fail with QM itself, it only fail the Copenhagen interpretation, and i start to think that interpretations should not be mixed with science at all, and should be left to philosophy, where they are more suitable. 

the truth is that determinism may or may not exist.  with our current knowledge we just don't know. both determinism and true randomness has the same standing.

It fails in that it is never possible for any amount of local information to make the results of experiments predictable. As the only solution is for the information to break causality, quantum mechanics is not deterministic (when causality is broken there is no real meaning to determinism, as information does not respect the order of time).

Elroch ... your comment is ridicules by a single view - you don't know what your looking at, the quantum world. Ever actually seen it live? Very few of the leading scientists are of the same mind, there are few consensus regarding what is it's "reality". We know how to take advantage of it, as a tool for some applications, but it can not be so claimed QM is not deterministic. Silver1 is right, it's in the same standing as true randomness. Definitions aside, there just is not enough information, and possibly there never will be, that being the nature of question to make a scientific explanation. If you want to draw your own conclusions, fine and dandy, your interpretation works well for you.

"Information does not respect the order of time" - Elroch

The order of time? What is that ??

You think you know of Time ! Good luck with that :-)

My conclusion - we are looking at the same thing, randomness and causality under different disguises. 

The order of time is the fact that if one event is in the past of another event to one observer, it is in the past of that event to all observers. Therefore the notion of "before" is universal (unlike, say the notion "at the same time" -  simultaneity).

MustangMate, large numbers of people use quantum theory in their work every day, and it works. Read any book on solid state physics, for example. Or quantum cryptography. Or quantum computing. 

happy2help hiho. have no idea wut i did, but there u go.

i have a question. wait...a few.

Is this so-called BB over now ? or are there still residuals being emitted ? if not, then whats happening btwn the epicenter and the internal particle horizon ? and since they say e/t is moving away from this so-called nucleus, then why cant we place an absolute 3-D cartesian (0,0,0) at its origin ? we should be able to know at least that much, right ?

"cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions.  This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

"Where is the center of the universe"?

[EDIT: I see your question was a quote. Naturally John Baez has answered it way better than me].

Why would you feel it needed to have a centre?

The answer you want is really "everywhere". It is everywhere in the observable Universe that came from the same small, hot, rapidly expanding Universe. At 380,000 years, when the CMB was formed, this region was only of the order of 80 million light years across, I believe (could do with checking the estimate). This is smaller than the Virgo supercluster of galaxies is now, a tiny corner of the Universe (perhaps a billionth of its volume).