4 ms·

I mean, if you think generating a large amount of pure randomness from a quantum mechanical source is cool, you can do it with crap you can buy at Microcenter.

I mean, if you think generating a large amount of pure randomness from a quantum mechanical source is cool, you can do it with crap you can buy at Microcenter. Just amplify a reverse-biased diode. You'll get some entropy from quantum tunneling and (probably more) from avalanche breakdown. Then you can use a simple MC to digitize, and apply a simple algorithm to ensure an equal number of random 1's and 0'. This is a good write-up (RIP Make): https://makezine.com/projects/really-really-random-number-generator/ https://makezine.com/projects/really-really-random-number-ge...

techslave 7y ago
exactly. in fact there exist already other sources of “ultimate” randomness, available commercially without needing a quantum computer.
gaze 7y ago
Yeah but if you do that there's a bunch of thermally driven noise mixed in which might be conspiring to generate a predictable key to secure your porn stash... so there's a chance you might get compromised. All this true random number generator stuff strikes me as a bit dippy.
- contravariant 7y ago
  Well, it prevents Laplace and Maxwell's demon from predicting and interfering with your random numbers. Although it wouldn't prevent either of them from breaking any encryption you could care to throw at them, and most realistic threats are bound by the laws of physics, but hey it's something.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
You are oversimplifying the issue and solving a "strawman problem. From the abstract of one of the discussed papers [1], > We give a protocol for producing certifiable randomness from a single _untrusted_ quantum device that is _polynomial-time bounded_. The randomness is certified to be statistically close to uniform from the point of view of any _computationally unbounded quantum adversary_, that may _share entanglement_ with the quantum device. where I have highlighted the important terms. Your goal is to generate a random string that you trust that your adversary does not have any statistical information about. * untrusted: the device that you are using to generate the random string is untrusted. You bought it from the market but have not tested it or can't test it with resources on hand. * polynomial-time bounded: to get a random string of size $n$, you don't want to run the untrusted device for longer than poly($n$) * computationally unbounded quantum adversary: the adversary is computationally unbounded. If the adversary was more limited computationally, it might be possible to use a simpler protocol to generate your random string. * share entanglement: this is important. If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab, allowing him to get the same measurement results as you did. Clearly, this is a very difficult problem, but is relevant to when your random number generator comes installed in your laptop from the manufacturer. This problem is also important for understanding the information processing powers of quantum mechanics. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00640 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00640 To add some argument from authority, the authors of this Vazirani and Vidick are two of the giants of the field and know what they are talking about.
- nategri 7y ago
  "If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab" lol
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    You might laugh, but this is a fairly standard statement you will hear a quantum information scientist say. While we are interested in the technological applications of quantum devices, we are more interested in using these information processing tasks to challenge and understand the physical laws of the universe. In other words, in the statement "If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab", the adversary is actually the physical laws of the universe, and we are testing what those laws allow as far as generating randomness goes.

techslave 7y ago

exactly. in fact there exist already other sources of “ultimate” randomness, available commercially without needing a quantum computer.

gaze 7y ago

Yeah but if you do that there's a bunch of thermally driven noise mixed in which might be conspiring to generate a predictable key to secure your porn stash... so there's a chance you might get compromised. All this true random number generator stuff strikes me as a bit dippy.

contravariant 7y ago
Well, it prevents Laplace and Maxwell's demon from predicting and interfering with your random numbers. Although it wouldn't prevent either of them from breaking any encryption you could care to throw at them, and most realistic threats are bound by the laws of physics, but hey it's something.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

You are oversimplifying the issue and solving a "strawman problem. From the abstract of one of the discussed papers [1], > We give a protocol for producing certifiable randomness from a single _untrusted_ quantum device that is _polynomial-time bounded_. The randomness is certified to be statistically close to uniform from the point of view of any _computationally unbounded quantum adversary_, that may _share entanglement_ with the quantum device. where I have highlighted the important terms. Your goal is to generate a random string that you trust that your adversary does not have any statistical information about. * untrusted: the device that you are using to generate the random string is untrusted. You bought it from the market but have not tested it or can't test it with resources on hand. * polynomial-time bounded: to get a random string of size $n$, you don't want to run the untrusted device for longer than poly($n$) * computationally unbounded quantum adversary: the adversary is computationally unbounded. If the adversary was more limited computationally, it might be possible to use a simpler protocol to generate your random string. * share entanglement: this is important. If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab, allowing him to get the same measurement results as you did. Clearly, this is a very difficult problem, but is relevant to when your random number generator comes installed in your laptop from the manufacturer. This problem is also important for understanding the information processing powers of quantum mechanics. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00640 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00640 To add some argument from authority, the authors of this Vazirani and Vidick are two of the giants of the field and know what they are talking about.

nategri 7y ago
"If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab" lol
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  You might laugh, but this is a fairly standard statement you will hear a quantum information scientist say. While we are interested in the technological applications of quantum devices, we are more interested in using these information processing tasks to challenge and understand the physical laws of the universe. In other words, in the statement "If the adversary is the one who sold you your diode, he might have entangled it in some way with the devices in his own lab", the adversary is actually the physical laws of the universe, and we are testing what those laws allow as far as generating randomness goes.