Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Interesting, but I don't think this generates true random numbers.

The traditional quantum optics setup does, however. The basic design is also a lot simpler: you've got your source of photons, your half-silvered mirror, a bunch of detectors and you're ready to go.

Here are some devices from ID Quantique that use quantum optics:

http://www.idquantique.com/component/content/article.html?id...




> I don't think this generates true random numbers.

I'm interested in what makes you think that. If you could predict the precise course of electrons through a reverse biased pn junction, I would have thought that would be a breakthrough in quantum mechanics worthy of the Nobel Prize in physics.


I'm not in complete understanding of what differentiates a true random number from a non-true one in this instance.

I fully understand why algorithmic pseudo-random numbers can be said to be not 'true' random numbers -- if you know the algorithm that produces the numbers, and you know enough of the numbers output by any particular 'round' of random-number-generation production, you can in principle figure out how the algorithm was seeded -- or narrow it down to a few possible seeds -- and predict with greater accuracy its future outputs. (I'd like to know if I've got that wrong).

But in this case, that doesn't seem to be a concern. What could make someone think it's an 'un-true' RNG? What, to such a person, would a 'true' RNG look like? Is thermal noise an 'un-true' RNG? Why?


Some hardware RNGs had poor deskewing or correlated bits or no failure detection or were outputing other non-random noise or were using weird sampling rates.

I post a link elsewhere in the thread with some description. RFC4046 has some more information.

So, while the hole-electron moving[1] through the pn junction is quantum there's a bunch of other stuff that can be sent to the output stream and that poor software implementations include as random.

[1] apologies to physicists for inaccurate terminology. I never really know how to describe what hPpens with holes and electrons in semi conductors.


You might be right.

It's just that the optical system is simpler, and still predicts true randomness. So if I were forced to e.g. build a business based on true random numbers, I'd probably go for the simpler system.


Shot noise that causes avalanche effect is quantum noise.

The problem of generating quantum random numbers is same as with optical device: removing all other sources of noise.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: