Quantum Random Numbers For Download 132
PSUdaemon writes "The University of Geneva has produced a website that allows you to download truly random numbers generated from an Optical quantum random number generator. They will also be releasing a client API that you can use directly in your codes to download random numbers."
Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
w00t! (Score:1, Funny)
Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Anyway, there cannot be a TRULY random number. There is nothing random. For everything there is an equation.
_____________
http://www.rate.ee/user
Just for testing...
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:4, Informative)
Read Here [randomnumbers.info]
It's only one click away from the first page.
Next you'll be telling us you know more that he does.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:5, Informative)
The bottom line is there's no theory of 'local hidden variables' that would make quantum mechanics a deterministic theory in the 'classical' sense.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:4, Informative)
So, at least the general principles of QM are correct. What this means is that there are non-local effects embedded in the theory, which make a deterministic (and thus predictable, i.e. non-random) description impossible.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Well, that's a leap there. In the propositional calculus, a implies b and not a does not imply not b. The law of gravity would be proven incorrect if someone is going to be levitating above their desk at 10:00 am tomorrow. If that DOESN'T happen, the law of gravity may still be incorrect, but it doesn't prove it.
Another point I'd like to make is that quantum mechanics is merely a theory, as in a way of understa
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
to make it formally correct: Bell's Inequality would have shown that QM is incomplete (and actually wrong) in the non-local assumptions. It being false, the non-local assumptions (with which it is formally incompatible) hold. That dows not prove QM. But the point was not to show QM is wrong (that would have been a bonus). What it says now is QM can be an incomplete theory - and it actually is. Notice that, this way, it's still correct at some level, while incomplete
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:3, Informative)
No, not quite. It makes a local, deterministic description impossible. It does not make it impossible that the outcome of each measurement event was determined by the quantum wavefunction of the universe as a whole, only that it can't be predicted by a quantum wavefunction involving o
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
I was only trying not to repeat 'local' too many times. (that being the initial problem, the non-locality of QM). Yes, Bell's inequality only contradicts QM on a local level.
But once you have to take 'the Universe as a whole' into account you're done. There's no possible description anymore, since you do not have access to all the controlling parameters. All you can do is approximate and thus make a global theory a moot point, since it's pretty much
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
Agreed.
The distinction is between random meaning not deterministic and random meaning not predictable.
The second is about the availability of information and the ability to process it. It is certainly true that quantum fluctuations provide a source of numbers which is not predictable in practice, and it can probably be proved that it can't be predicted, given reasonable assumptions about the availability of information about the quantum state of the generator.
For the first, I'm not sure any experimen
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
In the sense that we know anything in science, we know that quantum mechanics is correct. If you want to go down the path of "all science is just the current best guess", that's true, and we'll all end up talking about whether we're just brains in a lab somewhere being fed artificial stimulation to simulate reality.
The nature of the true randomness of quantum phenomena is about as well known and verified as anything in science.
State of Sin (Score:2)
Always remember the Wisdom of Von Neumann :
"Anyone who uses determininstic methods to generate random numbers is living in a state of sin."
But if the equation is longer(in bits) than the random number, it is random in a very nice way.
For equation, read "Turing Machine" to be a bit more careful. To be even more careful, read the papers on the process. Google for Chaitin and "Kolmogorov complexity".
Note that I'm carefully not saying to use such things in cryptography.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
No, I'm not. I surely do not know more than almost any of Physics professor you can name here.
I just believe that for everything there is a formula and that there's a kinda metaformula, which describes EVERYTHING in this world.
Everything else is simplification.
Maybe my theory is wrong. But then again - nothing is wrong unless proved so.
(pardon my English, it's almost 3am here, I'm having a bad flu and it's not my first language.)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Sounds fair alright. But tell me, how could such "metaformula" be else than from some metametaformula ? Etc. etc. etc.
These Sisyphean endeavours are much fun, but peeps have to learn when to stop when determinism's the issue
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is wrong. Godel said so. The problem is that your metaformula describes all truths, but there are more truths than there are possible descriptions.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Just think of the world as a great computer.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:4, Informative)
At the macroscopic level, that's true, but at the quantum level the type of determinism you describe ("For everything there is an equation") breaks down. Consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more precisely the position is known, the less precisely the momentum can be known. Even with instruments advanced enough to measure one of these values with infinite precision, the other would be unknown, and no equation could be created to describe the particle's state. It could be anything, and there is no way to predict what its exact value will be.
This is very useful for true randomness, unlike the sack of blocks. If you measured the state of the blocks, you would find that they obey Newtonian mechanics, and you could predict which block was on top, given enough information about their state at some point and the forces acting upon them. With quantum particles, gathering that much information about the state is precluded by the laws of quantum physics, so the answer is effectively random.
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, even assuming a perfect integrator there's no way to measure the initial state precisely, so there are limits to how far you can evolve it computationally. However, similar arguments hold for the 2-body problem; so you'll have to find a more clever way of "macro-fying" quan
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
How they do it [randomnumbers.info]
At the bottom it explains about the semi transparent mirror system for generating the numbers. The article suggests that the mirror is 50% transparent/50% not transparent. This seems to me to be the point where a bias may be introduced. Surely its physically impossible to manufacture such a mirror to guarantee it is exactly 50/50 either way. It might be a very small bias, but ill bet there is one there. You'd just need a lot of num
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2)
The randomness is only true to the observer.
--
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2, Interesting)
So ? OK, now we know which block was on top. Now, how to we know WHICH BLOCK IS TAKEN ? Becomes more random, eh ? Now presume that the person who takes blocks out of the sack is clinically unpredictable. Now, is this TRULY random ?
Heisenberg's uncertainity principle is as much simp
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:1)
__________________________________________
"Seeing is believing.
Doubting is heresy."
Al F. Nero, 1998
Re:Truly Random Number ? (Score:2, Insightful)
this only exists because we have limited ability of measuring.,
any measurement on that level will influence the thing you are measuring.,
so we invented the theory of quantum mechanics to describe this phenomenon.,
but in fact we don't know for sure what's beyond this because we have no instruments to measure it.,
it's our own inability to not interact with a sample that shapes
Pffft (Score:1, Funny)
Not bad, not bad... (Score:3, Informative)
Array
(
[0] => 505
[1] => 495
)
Array
(
[0] => 108
[1] => 95
[2] => 99
[3] => 92
[4] => 119
[5] => 87
[6] => 105
[7] => 101
[8] => 80
[9] => 114
}
Not too terribly bad of a distribution to my eye.
Re:Not bad, not bad... (Score:2)
If their random number generator precludes repetition, it's progressively less random, right? Because the randomness becomes infinity (or highest number) - n, n being the number of answers it's taking out of circulation.
Or am I just on crack?
Re:Not bad, not bad... (Score:2)
A good way of figuring out if a pattern is likely to be random or not is to run a chi squared approximation, which will show how far off the spread is from expected values.
Re:Not bad, not bad... (Score:3, Funny)
Inquiring minds want to know
Re:Not bad, not bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to tell.
Here's a simple perl script to demonstrate:
Re:Not bad, not bad... (Score:3, Funny)
Array
(
[0] => 134
)
Looks pretty random to my eye.
Use VIA cpus for good random numbers instead (Score:2, Interesting)
is this really random? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:is this really random? (Score:1)
In the interest of preserving entropy, I urge you not to RTFA
How do they know ? (Score:2)
And what kinds of applications might they be used for?
Why does it need to be a quantum random number generator? How come you cant use an aerial and pick up white noise?
nick
Re:How do they know ? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are statistical tests (see Knuth), like spectral flatness and incompressibility, but complete "certainty" has to rest on the theoretical underpinnings of QM, with testing by Bell's inequality (discussed elsewhere on this page).
And what kinds of applications might they be used for?
Secure communications, ignoring for now the problem of distributing the random bits.
Why does it need to be a quantum random number gener
Single point of failure (Score:2, Interesting)
Want to compromise any cryptographic system that uses this "pure" RNG? Man-in-the-middle the data connection, or just spoof DNS/IP addresses. Suddenly, you're in control of session key generation...
Re:Single point of failure (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect that will be encrypted and involve public key swapping to avoid man in the middle.
Re:Single point of failure (Score:1)
Re:Single point of failure (Score:2)
The only man in the middle attack is going to be some guy in Alabama with a shotgun. I think I'd know if it were intercepted.
Re:Single point of failure (Score:1)
Re:Single point of failure (Score:2)
Using this as the sole random source is criminally negligent, but I see know reason at all why you couldn't use it an yet another input source for a local PRNG. Even if this source were completely 0wn3d, it wouldn't decrease that amount of entropy in the user's pool - it just wouldn't add to it.
In much the s
So how many slashdotters will it take... (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot OS Progect (with RNG) (Score:1)
Much longer than it would take for a request for 1000 numbers between 0 and 8191 (2^13), but I digres into a useless rant. The executables generated from the RNG would work better than Windows, maybe.
Even better, use the RNG to create random code, then use it in conjunction with genetic algorithims (RNG for determining mutation) to crea
Re:Slashdot OS Progect (with RNG) (Score:2)
You know that people have used genetic algorithms to improve some kinds of program? Probably nothing very complicated because the fitness tests would take far too long to run (perhaps the Timex 1000's operating system would be possible!). There was an article in Byte or Dr Dobbs about 10 years ago.
This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus I just asked for 1000 (the most allowed) numbers between 1 - 100. I was scared by what I got back.
I was amazed. Any sane person will NOT outsource the generation of their source of randomness - it is WAY to critical.
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
However, yes... you can trust this to be random, and no, you can't trust it to "correctly destroy all of the information between here and there".
I don't believe that the intent of this is to do realworld crypto nor games (which is what other people are claiming the other "major" use of random numbers are). A set of purely random numbers is really only useful to people testing mathematic theories or other high math science work. For crypto, decent pseudo-random sequences (or the old "pull from an analog source" trick) is perfectly fine. This is overkill for realworld crypto (not to mention broadcast via the internet), which means that this is primarily useful - to math scientists.
--
Evan
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:2)
Say _WHAT_? I sure as hell hope not. I'd rather not have some half-assed pseudo-random sequence for a OTP used on extremely sensitive corporate documents. If you're a huge company (say, IBM), and you have documents that could be feasibly worth one billi
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:2)
Yes, and I have (as in, I have been the admin for finance companies dealing with information worth more than a billion dollars). In fact, pretty much all crypto out there uses less than truly random sequences.
Truly random numbers are exceedingly difficult to get. I'm talking mathematically pure random numbers that math geeks go gaga o
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:2)
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 (repeated quite a bit - cut to pass the poster comment compression filter)
Wow, I'd be scared to, I mean.. what are the chances?!?
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:1)
Re:This is SOOOOOO Bad (Score:2)
You are correct - I did not correctly say that there was a 100^1000 chance that the result page that I was presented would be generated randomly. This is such a huge percentage that I gladly bow to your superior knowledge of statistics and probability.
Swings the cluebat for the fences
Interesting, but not that useful (Score:5, Interesting)
The other reason we need them is for secure encryption purposes. If you felt paranoid enough to need quantumly generated random numbers, would you really get the numbers over the internet from an untrusted source?
What would be much more interesting would be if intel/AMD started including a random number generator directly on processors which allowed you to get some random numbers via some random process on chip.
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:5, Informative)
Don't know about AMD, but this has been in Intel's chipsets since at least the 815 (I am pretty sure it was in the 810 chipset). They use a noisy diode and read the the value across it. I know it is certified, but I have never seen the operating range of the certification (I assume it is between x & y degrees Celcius - and at some point the diode starts to read more 0's than 1's or the other way around)
Many 3rd party crypto companies have other RNGs built into their hardware - it is rather important for various security purposes.
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:1)
Most mobo manufacturers chose to use others plain-jane flash chips as they were cheaper and they could use them over their entire line of mobo's (VIA, SIS, etc). This and lack of support by software companies for the RNG resulted in intel discontinuing the "firmware hub".
Datasheet available here [intel.com]
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:2, Informative)
Cheers, Alfred
AMD Has Random numbers, too (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if this source of randomness is compromised, adding it to your already existing sources of randomness coulden't hurt. It's best to layer sources of randomness on top of each other - so if one source or two isen't random, the whole stack of randomness isen't compromised.
Re:Interesting, but not that useful (Score:2)
Simulation (Score:1)
Digital communication simulations need very good RNG sources, especially when simulating concatenated codes that result in very low BER. I have lost weeks worth of work because of bad and misrepresented generators.
How to listen to real random noise. (Score:4, Funny)
open up a text editor and paste the results in, repeat the process several times till you have a nice big file of random numbers. Then simply
%> cat randomnumbers.txt
its an interesting noise , i think you will agree
nick
Re:How to listen to real random noise. (Score:2)
Re:How to listen to real random noise. (Score:2)
but it sounds different! try it you will see.
Isn't that just because you have created files consisting entirely of digits (so only containing bytes in the range 0x30 to 0x39), whereas catting /dev/urandom to /dev/dsp will use bytes over the entire range 0x00 to 0xff?
<unwarranted-sarcasm> If that amuses you, try 0x70 to 0x7f. Or, you could be really cool and use 0xa5 to 0xb5 (don't tell anyone else though, it's top secret!). </unwarranted-sarcasm>
Re:How to listen to real random noise. (Score:1)
But anyway I guess I'm not disputing that it'll sound interesting!
I think I'll try that when I get home, out of curiosity.
here's what they really want (Score:1)
use Net::RandomNumbers.info qw(:all);
my @firstgroup = connect('arraysize' => '90',
'range' => '1 1000',
);
foreach $linein ( @firstgroup ) {
print "$linein \n";
}
exit 0;
# Please wait
This is stupid (Score:1)
Re:This is stupid (Score:1)
Cool! (Score:3)
Yes, I know the numbers are generated in a different way, but they're still random. Is the quantum angle the reason for the wow factor here?
Where are the LavaLamps ??? (Score:2)
But where are the Lava Lamps to get the mundanes interested????
What about Hotbits? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about Hotbits? (Score:1)
Re:What about Hobbits? (Score:2)
It worked ok for a while, then it started repeating..which made it clear it was not truly random. Altough, Elijah tried to fake it by saying random lines from the script whenever he forgot the real lines. Peter just left them in anyway.
"Sam, don't you miss the Shire?"
"I sure do, Mr. Frodo...I sure do."
They need SSL with a published certificate (Score:1)
Re:They need SSL with a published certificate (Score:2)
Good one, Einstein! Using truly random numbers for a traditional RNG does NOT make the output more random.
-psy
Re:They need SSL with a published certificate (Score:1)
PRNGs cycle, and there are things you can do get around that, such as restarting them every so often or mixing in more entropy, but it is the initial entropy used to seed that is important.
PRNGs being deterministic means that it's very, very important that you start the sequence from a random point each time; an unguessable point in the sequence. Using pure random data to seed a PRNG will make it's use more secure.
Think of the digits
Re:They need SSL with a published certificate (Score:2)
-psy
Good for WEP keys (Score:3, Interesting)
But in general this type of resource is only good for small one off uses, research, and testing. They are providing it to see how good their distribution is, find problems with this type of setup before rolling out a for-pay service where you can have your own remote RNG. It would be good for laptop users who need an RNG that's more powerful than the dinky ones you can carry with you.
-Adam
Re:Good for WEP keys (Score:1)
Re:Good for WEP keys (Score:2)
I don't remember where I got them now. It's not hard to convert numbers from the website of the subject of this article into hex. Just ask for a bunch of numbers 0-16, then convert each number to its hex equivilant:
15 2 15 14 13 3 14 10
F2FED3EA
-Adam
Re:Good for WEP keys (Score:2)
To form the encryption key, 3 bytes (24 bits) are used from the 802.11b header for initialisation, with the remainder supplied by the user. So:
64 bit key - user gives 40 bits = 10 hex digits or 5 characters
128 bit key - user gives 104 bits = 26 hex digits or 13 characters
256 bit key - user gives 232 bits = 58 hex digits or 29 cha
Re:Good for WEP keys (Score:2)
If you did that, the key is nowhere near "random". A better adjective might be "meaningless in terms of dictionary attacks".
On a side note, it really doesn't matter what your WEP key is. Even if you used a quantum random number generator for your WEP key, it's pretty trivial for your neighbors to break it, sniff your traffic, inject traffic, etc. The code is out there for download, has been for a long time.
okay that was freaky... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:okay that was freaky... (Score:2)
For what unit of time? If per week, give me a call. If per year, how's that Ramen taste?
Re:okay that was freaky... (Score:2)
Re:okay that was freaky... (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:1)
I wonder what Bill Gates would do if he saw that.
Business plan... (Score:1)
Who needs it? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Who needs it? (Score:2)
LavaRND (Score:2)
People unclear on the concept. (Score:2)
Contrary to the case where classical physics is used as the source of randomness and where determinism is hidden behind complexity, one can say that with quantum physics randomness is revealed by simplicity.
Anyone who's studied Quantum Physics and doesn't see that the innate quality of the randomness is a presumed conclusion just wasn't paying enough attention.