Tony Wolff

Right I think I've got it. So is anyone even attempting to investigate a deterministic basis for QM or are physicists just too lazy?

I suppose that puts my question more clearly. Is it right that 'it has not been proven that there aren't underlying mechanics that make QM deterministic'?

When you say it IS random does that mean that the point at which will decay is theoretically impossible to predict and will remain so forever. How do we know that if you have two atoms one about to decay and the other not that there is not some difference between them that we at present cannot determine. I recognise that I may be being extremely naive - not being a physicist!

I am right in believing that all of Einstein's theories were based on thought experiments rather than the results of direct observations. If this is the case is there any reason why he could not have arrived at his theories at any time after Newton?

Is the point in time at which a particular radioactive atom decays still regarded as totally unpredictable, or to put it another way are we any closer to understanding what causes the decay to happen? If not is this an area of physics that is under investigation or is it regarded as too difficult?