Researchers Devise a Way To Generate Provably Random Numbers Using Quantum Mechanics (newatlas.com) 139
No random number generator you've ever used is truly, provably random. Until now, that is. Researchers have used an experiment developed to test quantum mechanics to generate demonstrably random numbers, which could come in handy for encryption. From a report: The method uses photons to generate a string of random ones and zeros, and leans on the laws of physics to prove that these strings are truly random, rather than merely posing as random. The researchers say their work could improve digital security and cryptography. The challenge for existing random number generators is not only creating truly random numbers, but proving that those numbers are random. "It's hard to guarantee that a given classical source is really unpredictable," says Peter Bierhorst, a mathematician at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), where this research took place. "Our quantum source and protocol is like a fail-safe. We're sure that no one can predict our numbers." For example, random number algorithms often rely on a source of data which may ultimately prove predictable, such as atmospheric noise. And however complex the algorithm, it's still applying consistent rules. Despite these potential imperfections, these methods are relied on in the day-to-day encryption of data. This team's method, however, makes use of the properties of quantum mechanics, or what Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance." Further reading: Wired, LiveScience, and CNET.
Random.Org to the Rescue! (Score:2, Informative)
Mostly just for the random entertainment value: https://www.random.org/
First post (Score:2, Funny)
int getRandomNumber() // chosen from random post number
{
return 1;
}
Re: (Score:1)
What is "provably random"?
Can you really "prove" that a number is random?
Re:First post (Score:4, Interesting)
Very Different from Maths Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this is really no different than other mathematical proofs.
No, it is very different from a mathematical proof. This proof relies on our understanding of quantum mechanics and photons. Mathematical proofs are far more fundamental in that they are true regardless of the properties of the universe you happen to be in at the time. That being said QM is one of the most accurately tested scientific laws there has ever been but, nevertheless, if an experiment tomorrow shows that it is wrong this "proof" might come crashing down.
Re: Very Different from Maths Proof (Score:3)
Is this actually new? My understanding was that 'hidden variables' were ruled out, so randomness is required, as any theory that predicted outcomes would be tantamount to hidden variables. So we already have quantum randomness generators:
https://qrng.anu.edu.au/ [anu.edu.au]
Re: (Score:2)
No, only local hidden variables were ruled out. But non-local hidden variables are so weird that almost nobody believes in them. (They've got to be non-local in time as well as in space.)
I've got to admit I don't understand what that means. Ask David Bohm, though you'll need a medium. Or you could try to read his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Good luck.
Re:Very Different from Maths Proof (Score:4, Interesting)
Mathematical proofs are far more fundamental in that they are true regardless of the properties of the universe you happen to be in at the time.
This is deeply wrong.
Mathematical proofs are true if and only if the assumptions (axioms) on which they're based are true. When you apply mathematics to real things, you're making a critical unproven and unprovable assumption: That the mathematical structure maps perfectly onto the real-world structure. That this works quite well isn't surprising, because we work hard to craft mathematical structures that map as closely as we can, and because the universe appears to have consistent structure. That said, the fact that it has always worked well in no way proves that the mapping will always hold, and it says nothing about the "truth" of reality other than we observe that it consistently appears to behave according to a certain pattern.
The map is not the terrain. And when you posit a universe with a different properties (different terrain!) then there is no reason to expect the map even to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
This is deeply wrong.
No, it's correct and indeed you say as much in your reply! As you say maths is based on certain axioms which are held to be true and as long as you hold those axioms to be true mathematical proofs based on them are absolute. Whether those proofs are useful for describing the real world is a different question.
In this way maths is not a map to the real world it is a language we can use to describe it. A map is always required to describe accurately the world it is associated with but with a language we c
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't everything use Quantum Mechanics?
Actually no, gravity does not or at least nobody has yet been able to come up with a consistent picture of quantum gravity so far. Then there are the things that we know exist, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but have no clue about their nature. They are probably explainable within our existing framework of QM but until we know what they are we cannot be certain.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if it's provably random but you do not understand the proof, does it matter to you that it was provably random, rather than pseudorandom?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Chi-squared test comes close.
Re: (Score:2)
Chi-squared test comes close.
Not nearly as close as the Markov-Renye min entropy test or the least common value test.
In fact tests of randomness fill the largest two chapters in my book on random number generators.
https://www.degruyter.com/view... [degruyter.com]
Available at all good internet portals sometime later this year.
Re: (Score:3)
What is "provably random"?
It is bullshit.
Bullshit. If quantum physics is random, then macroscopic noise is random and there are entropy extraction algorithms are mathematically provable to have a random output in terms of min-entropy or computational predictions bounds, assuming they have a random input with a certain min-entropy.
Can you really "prove" that a number is random?
No. See above.
Yes. See above.
Re: (Score:3)
If quantum physics is random ...
That is an assumption, not an axiom. As our understanding of physics improves, we may find deeper patterns.
... then macroscopic noise is random
So what makes this new RNG different from other RNGs based on quantum phenomena, such as Brownian motion, or zener diode avalanches?
Re: (Score:2)
An axiom is an assumption
But yes, there may or may not be deeper patterns.
>So what makes this new RNG different from other RNGs based on quantum phenomena, such as Brownian motion, or zener diode avalanches?
That it proves in a live fashion that the data is from a random process, provided the rules of quantum physics are true. This is a higher form of proof from existing RNGs based on sampling noise and running it through entropy extraction algorithms. It's not the only higher form of proof. There are qua
Re:First post (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory XKCD reference for those that didn't get it: https://xkcd.com/221/ [xkcd.com]
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-... [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The Dilbert brings a bit more insight.
Most pseudo-random number generators aren't capable of generating a long sequence of the same number, and for most applications that would be undesirable and probably reported as a bug.
A true random number is capable of generating an infinite sequence of the same number. That particular outcome is just a likely as any other specific sequence.
When we use randomness in programming we often want a controlled "randomness" that gives us a fairly even distribution.
The one in
Nice try "researchers" (Score:4, Funny)
You're not fooling me. It's well known that the NSA incorporated backdoors into the fabric of the universe when they subverted the big bang.
xkcd... (Score:3)
return 4;
}
Re: (Score:2)
We have new technology to optimize that code now. Here's the modern implementation:
int getRandom() { // generated by "spooky action at a distance"
return 4;
}
Not the first (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
See Lava Rand [wikipedia.org]
Thank you. An RNG that uses external sources (values inherent to QM) to generate said value isn't using a strict mathematical proof. This is just reality sampling.
Woo Quantum, must be better... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have thought thermal noise in a resistor or semiconductor (which is in itself generated by subatomic so quantum, events) would be just as random.
Re: (Score:2)
What about small tritium gas vial, size used in wristwatch numbers (like a Trigalight) coupled with a detector? Couple that with some high speed flip-flops or as stated above, noise in a NP junction, and that should produce cryptographically secure random numbers, especially if the CPU had a built in pool with a "stirring" mechanism so anything periodic would be dispersed among the bits fairly quickly.
Re:Woo Quantum, must be better... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, and that's exactly how Intel's hardware-based random number generator in their CPUs works (so, yes, we have used a truly provably random source of RNGs... that is, if Intel is telling the truth about how it works). Another source of RNG is radioactive decay, though that's not terribly commonly used thanks to the hardware requirements. In this case, the article doesn't describe the source of randomess (aside from "correlations in superpositions", which could be anything from completely random to completely unrandom). It might not even be as random as they think it is (just being quantum is very much not enough), especially because they "improved their data" by only looking at sequences where the bits were almost perfectly uniformly 50/50 1 and 0, which is precisely not the right way to ensure good randomness: true random sequences usually don't obey uniformity, except in the limit as the length of the sequence goes to infinity, and requiring uniformity (or near-uniformity) in a "random" sequence reduces the entropy. That tells me they don't really understand randomness, which does not bode well for their claims.
Re:Woo Quantum, must be better... (Score:4, Interesting)
>It is, and that's exactly how Intel's hardware-based random number generator in their CPUs works
Indeed, it is. I happen to know this well because I'm one of the designers of it.
Quantum proven randomness is proven by showing a violation of Bell's theorem, showing a correlation that exceeds whats could be achieved by unentangled particles and therefore showing that they were a part of a random quantum process.
The form of every mathematical proof is of the form "If this is true, then [blah blah blah], so that it true".
The form of this particular proof is "If the rules of quantum physics are true, then [blah blah blah] so 'the output is random' is true".
Re: (Score:2)
>If the rules of quantum physics are true
Exactly, and we can't answer this part of it. It appears to be true, but nobody knows the mechanism or whether there are non-Bell variables.
The multidimensional quasi crystal stuff pushed by Klee Irwin is interesting, because it points to a possibly deterministic result.
If that panned out I would be happy, because the opinion I've expressed here before would then be proven true: Ignorance is as good as non determinism when it comes to the use of random numbers in cryptography.
Re: (Score:2)
However others consider him a quack: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... [rationalwiki.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
Another source of RNG is radioactive decay, though that's not terribly commonly used thanks to the hardware requirements.
Radioactive decay is fundamentally a quantum effect, which is why we cannot predict individual decays, only the macroscale statistics. So the article might have a new method per se, but simply using quantum effects wouldn't be new.
they "improved their data" by only looking at sequences where the bits were almost perfectly uniformly 50/50 1 and 0, which is precisely not the right way to ensure good randomness: true random sequences usually don't obey uniformity, except in the limit as the length of the sequence goes to infinity, and requiring uniformity (or near-uniformity) in a "random" sequence reduces the entropy. That tells me they don't really understand randomness, which does not bode well for their claims.
I've written a HWRNG for FPGAs, and it was frustrating to test and tweak it to pass the tests in rng-tools based on FIPS 140-2. One of the tests fails upon too long stretches of 0s or 1s [dilbert.com], for example. I guess for practical purposes you want something like short-term randomness;
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought thermal noise in a resistor or semiconductor (which is in itself generated by subatomic so quantum, events) would be just as random.
It is, and that's exactly how Intel's hardware-based random number generator in their CPUs works (so, yes, we have used a truly provably random source of RNGs... that is, if Intel is telling the truth about how it works)
If you run the same code on the same CPU under the same conditions, how similar is the thermal noise generated? Is it completely different or will there be any similarities at all?
TIA, just curious.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have thought thermal noise in a resistor or semiconductor (which is in itself generated by subatomic so quantum, events) would be just as random.
Via the central limit theorem, the addition of multiple binary random events will combine into a gaussian distribution. It will be random, with the min-entropy determined by the distribution - H_inf(X) = -log_2(max(Pr(X_i)).
So there will be some entropy loss. But that's fine. There's plenty of entropy about us to sample and turn into random bits.
I knew it (Score:1)
So we do have free will after all.
Re: (Score:1)
No, photons have free will. We can prove it.
You are entirely predictable. Advertisers can prove it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Consider that we appear, by most standards of observation, to have at least some measure of what we imagine free will to be, and we generally live our lives as if we were free willed. In fact, if we were not, the expression "free will" would not even mean anything, since it is the very term that we regularly use to describe the appearance of freely made choices. By extension, therefore, if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actu
Re: (Score:1)
if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actual free
Seems apparent, is not a proof, may things that seem apparent are not true, if you have a rope are around the circumference of the earth and the you increase the diameter by 1m can you fit a cat under it. The answer is you increase the distance above the earth by 1/(2pi)m everywhere which is about 16cm. Or add 15% then take off 15% you do not end up with the same number.
There is no way to prove we have free will. Take for example I can control your every thought and action therefore you have no free will. I
Re: (Score:1)
Essentially any illusion of free will that cannot be distinguished from a hypothetical real free will may as well be just called free will, and arguing that it's not because it doesn't live up to some hypothetical standard is meaningless, particularly since it's impossible to prov
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So we do have free will after all.
Nope, the multiverse is most likely correct. The big bang never stopped, it just went interdimensional and time itself is an illusion caused by the patterns which emerge when tracing a path along one of all potential possibilities. The interference pattern and statistical interpretation of it is just the probability that a particle you observe on your worldline goes in a particular direction at a particular velocity, but all of those possibilities are traced out on different worldlines. There's a reality
Re: (Score:1)
I have a Quantum Multiverse-Locked Hammer (QMLH). When my QMLH is used on an object, 50% of the time it drives the object like a regular hammer, and 50% of the time it bounces back and does not impact the object. But fortunately, my hammer has a multiverse lock, which means it selects the quantum universe in which the probability was the 50% success of driving an object, so my hammer ALWAYS behaves like a non-quantum hammer to observers.
Multiverse theory and applications to topics like quantum computing are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So we do have free will after all.
With determinism, everything is on its set path, so we don't have free will.
But if everything is truly random at a fundamental level, it doesn't get any better. If the outcome of every decision is truly random, you're not actually making the choice.
So IMHO, free will isn't a question of determinism vs. randomness. At least not a binary question.
Lots of handwaving (Score:1)
I'm missing the proof that there are no non-local hidden-variables or super-deterministic local hidden variables at play.
TRNGs are common... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has already been established that thermal/shot component noise (most commonly from reversed diodes) is demonstrably statistically random and is based on quantum electrodynamic events.
TRNGs (True Random Number Generators) using this principle have been around for a while embedded in some hardware such as the Intel 82802 firmware hub found on some Intel mainboards
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pseudo-profound bullshit. Nothing in that post is true. Classifying something does not change the thing being classified.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. True random numbers will include short patterns, unpredictably.
Uniformly-distributed numbers will include short patterns, unpredictably. Random numbers can be characterized as conforming to a well-defined distribution (in fact, we almost always demand that the distribution be uniform) which in no way makes them less random.
Re: (Score:1)
No they cannot.
Random means without cause. That's it. It doesn't mean anything with regards to distribution, homogeneity, uniformity, etc. Those things means simply mean we don't notice a cause. Forcing things to meet that criteria, either on the generation end or on the selection end, means you're biasing your shit and you're giving cause to the data chosen. Thus, it is not random.
That's why these clowns keep clinging to quantum this and quantum that for random numbers, secure message passing, etc. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Random means without cause. That's it. It doesn't mean anything with regards to distribution, homogeneity, uniformity, etc.
Per your definition, does randomness actually exist? Can you point to some process you consider to be random?
Re: (Score:2)
Since days have passed and you've posted many other comments without answering my questions. So I'll go ahead and comment on why I asked them. Here were my questions:
If you believe randomness exists in some useful sense, you should be able to point to an example of something that is random. But, any example you choose will conform to some statistical distribution, which I could point out, which would
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
It's true. If your RNG could produce 128 bits of contiguous 1s or 0s (as a true RNG will), then sometimes the output will fail statistical tests for random on short sequences. The problem is in trying to quantify what "random" is. This device is guaranteed to have no bias, okay, a function that returns 0 1 0 1 0 1 ... is also guaranteed to have no bias, but the output fails other tests.
The only thing that actually matters with RNG for cryptography is that an adversary doesn't know what numbers you've genera
Re: (Score:2)
A bias is not an indicator for things not being truly random. A bias is just a bias and, unless you use a cryptographic whitener for post-processing, you always have some detectable bias in output from physical processes.
Re: (Score:2)
A bias is not an indicator for things not being truly random.
Yes, it is. Absolutely. If you reject something as non-random because it doesn't pass your statistical test despite there being a non-zero chance of a true random generator giving you that result, you're an idiot.
If you want pseudo random numbers, talk about that. When talking about randomness, you don't get to pick and choose your results, or reject sources based on the results. You only get to reject sources based on CAUSE. Random means without CAUSE.
porcupine entropy (Score:1)
I guess you never played hangman with a blood lust. Adversarial randomness, it's a thing. Eventually you reach a game-theoretic equilibria. The equilibria will never assign a probability of zero to any password.
Your underlying mental model here is that this is a multiplayer game, with a large group of guppies, a smaller group of porcupines, and some community of crackers.
New rule: guppies don'
Re: (Score:2)
"Statistically random" means that numbers are not evenly distributed. A series that has too few long sequences of one bit will be rejected by good randomness tests. This doesn't mean we can't have a run that has unusually few long sequences of one bit, given that the statistical analysis needs to have very large amounts of data.
Let's analyze your last sentence. If we take a number of methods with the goal of being X, if we reject the ones that aren't X, we get methods that aren't X. I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Statistically random" means that numbers are not evenly distributed.
Wrong. Absolutely 100% incorrect.
Every statistical test for randomness looks for uniform distribution across the range of possible values. If RAND(0,1) favors numbers A series that has too few long sequences of one bit will be rejected by good randomness tests.
"Long" is relative to the sample size. If you encounter a "long" sequence, most tests reject the generator. What your threshold is depends on what you're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Every statistical test for randomness ensures that numbers are uniform to within maybe two standard deviations. If the numbers are too evenly distributed, that suggests they aren't really random. If you generate 1000 random numbers from 1 to 10, and each number occurs 99, 100, or 101 times, that very strongly suggests the generator isn't random. If two numbers occur under 60 times and two others over 140 times, that would also be strong evidence it wasn't random (if I remember the formulas correctly, st
Re: (Score:1)
A truely random set of N numbers will accommodate every single possible combination of numbers in sequence. If a dice is being thrown, then at some point there should be a run of the same number regardless of how small the probability. Many RNG's won't be able to generate that because they permute bits so that different numbers are guaranteed to be generated each time.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit permutation is from software pseudo-random-number generators. It's not possible to generate real random numbers with software. We're talking about hardware random number generators, and there are physical processes that are either random or chaotic to the point that it makes no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't know that.
Random means without cause, not with a uniform result.
7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7 could be random for all you know.
Rejecting it as non random based on it being non-uniformly distributed is inherently wrong and counter to the concept of selecting random numbers.
If you want PSEUDO random numbers (homogenous, uniform numbers), then ask for that.
If you want RANDOM numbers you take what you get.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also really cheap to do. And, from physical principles, part of the noise generated is tunneling ("true random" if Quantum Theory is exact, which it most likely is not) and part is thermal (good enough for even hardcore cryptography). Hence this "story" is a mixture of lies and things that are irrelevant.
Quantum Random Numbers (Score:1)
Observe time between a decay and the next one. Do this twice. Next bit is comparison between the two times. This method is as old as quantum mechanics itself.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're talking about radioactive decay, we'll find that, statistically, intervals between decay get larger over time. This isn't completely unbiased. There is a way to make biased random bits unbiased, if you don't mind slower generation (a minimum of eight times slower, assuming an unbiased source). Divide the stream into pairs. Throw away all "11" and "00". Take "01" to be 0 and "10" to be 1.
What's a provably random number? (Score:1)
Is 1 less random than 29840972.58792384 ?
Perhaps they mean "randomly generate numbers"?
Re: (Score:1)
>Perhaps they mean "randomly generate numbers"?
And my conjecture is that you can never prove that "a set of presumably random numbers" is trully random, you can only prove that it is not random (by running it long enough that you can find a pattern)
[monkeys, typewriters, complete works of Shakespeare]
Re: (Score:2)
It is in fact trivial that any given set of numbers is not random. You can only say that a source of data produces data that is not predictable before it has produced the data. That property does not transfer to the data produced once it has been produced. All you have there is that it is not possible to infer the data from an accurate description of the source that produced it. But that is quite enough. In fact, for all relevant applications you do not even need "random". "Not predictable" is quite enough
Re: (Score:2)
"What's a provably random number? "
Perhaps they mean they can generate a number they can prove is more random than the best attempts of others.
From the article:
"The researchers call this proximity to fifty-fifty perfection "uniformity." From the more than 100 million bits generated, the researchers found 1,024 certified to be uniform to a trillionth of a percent. "A perfect coin toss would be uniform, and we made 1,024 bits almost perfectly uniform, each extremely close to equally likely to be 0 or 1," Bier
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. In that case they have no clue what they are talking about, though. Bias is not a factor (unless total) in whether something is random or not. In actual reality, just use an entropy pool, a cryptographic whitener and put in 1000 bits or so of entropy you are good. This "discovery" is irrelevant nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Is 1 less random than 29840972.58792384 ?
Perhaps they mean "randomly generate numbers"?
Not any more.
I can predict them both because you told me their values. Entropy is in the eye of the beholder.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are the same. "Randomness" is not a property of data. It is a property of a data-source, just as you say. But since they do not even know that quantum process based RNGs have been around for very long and are cheap to do in addition, anything said by them is likely nonsense.
Lava lamps as entropy source (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, I can finally upgrade my lava lamp [wikipedia.org] entropy source to a quantum source that uses laser light on a crystal. Why? Because /dev/urandom is for peasants.
And quickrdrand [github.com] is for kings and queens.
Wouldn't it be ironic if... (Score:2)
Let's face it, when you consider the budgets these TLAs get to play with, they must be orders of magnitude more than theoretical physicists and mathematicians - and we already know that t
Re: (Score:2)
The bogeyman / bullshit justification of fighting inanimate object such as the War on Terrorism (TM) is more profitable though. /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, when you consider the budgets these TLAs get to play with, they must be orders of magnitude more than theoretical physicists and mathematicians - and we already know that the NSA has more PhD mathematicians than anywhere else...
On the other hand, one thing a lot of brilliant people really want to do is become famous for answering a question or solving a problem that nobody else could -- a situation that is unlikely to happen for anyone who is working under triple-dog-secret-no-disclosure-ever-and-we-mean-it-or-else conditions at the NSA.
Any reasonably brilliant person can find a way make plenty of money, if making money is what motivates them. But the desire for money is not usually what drives brilliant people; OTOH figuring out
There's already an app for that (Score:2)
Simulation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. And if you have to ask, you have not understood the question you asked.
Re: Simulation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am just stating a fact. Please read up on theories before you ask for obvious characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
Amplifying from that (and I realize I was rude, my apologies), the thing is it is not actually possible to determine you are or you are not in a simulation, unless some very specific conditions are met. First, and most important, a proof is only possible if the human mind is at least somewhat independent of the simulation. Otherwise, the simulation would (if at least somewhat intelligently designed) determine what is going on and simply modify the minds attempting to prove anything to make them fail. So, un
Re: Simulation? (Score:2)
Re: Simulation? (Score:2)
Cloudflair (Score:2)
What about the giant wall of lava lamps that is used to generate random numbers..?
Nonsense (Score:2)
"We do not understand how it works" is not the same as "provable random numbers". Any proof here comes with "if quantum theory is exact". Now, it is known that Quantum Theory and Relativity are inconsistent, yet both are exceptionally well verified. It is therefore exceptionally likely that Quantum Theory is not an exact model of reality. Incidentally, it is not possible to prove that any specific bit of data is "random" either, Mathematics does not allow that and Physics even less so.
Also, just use a stand
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need for that.
Re: (Score:2)
you won't
(probably)
The Problem with this is.. (Score:2)
That you won't know its random till you look at it.
What's the difference? (Score:3)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a list of available hardware random number generators from $7 on up. The ones that use direct quantum randomness seem to start at about a thousand euros, the cheaper ones using forms of noise. There isn't any way to predict atmospheric noise, since we're talking about a chaotic system that deals with interactions small enough that the uncertainty principle isn't completely swamped.
Expensive and possibly biased (Score:1)
True randomness is there for sure, but making it unbiased is another matter. Real systems interact with their environments, and those environments can change the results in subtle ways. Small imperfections in the apparatus can create correlations between the photons, for example (simple example: magnetic fields cause photon polarizations to rotate). And correlations between random values are really nasty for random number generation. I'd be really reluctant to trust the output of such a random number ge
NIST scientist explains (Score:1)
I am a physicist who worked on this project at NIST, so I am sorry to be late to this conversation. A lot of the comments here express doubt or uncertainty about what is new or different in our quantum random number generator compared to others like thermal-electronic noise, lava lamps, random.org, and others. This a great question, because the news article linked at the top of the thread does not explain this well. Maybe I can help.
The key idea is that our randomness is "device independent", meanin
No such thing... (Score:1)
ALL outcomes of any algorithm will be reliant of the state of the constituent components;
actual states and those relative to their environment and (neighbors).
If you can duplicate those exact states and circumstances, you will get the same number.
Re: (Score:3)
Ted Stevens, is that you??
Re: (Score:2)
governments suppressing their people, electric grid is very exposed to both humans hacking
You know that requires random numbers right, large quantities that even if humans where good at generating random numbers they wouldn't be able to do fast enough.
But humans are terrible at generating random numbers, say to someone pick a number and my guess is it will generally be between 1 and 10, and whole. Even then there I the distribution will not be even. https://www.education.com/scie... [education.com]