James Kuyper said:On 06/05/2014 06:54 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
If that's what they measured, then I'm far less surprised by that result
than I was by your original statement of it. I'm so unsurprised, that
the fact that they consider it unexplained confuses me. Possibly I'm
missing something that makes that result less obvious than it seems to be.
Quantum randomness is always necessarily derived ultimately from
measurements of a quantum process. It's extremely difficult to ensure an
exactly even distribution when measuring something, even if the thing
you're trying to measure does, in fact, have an exactly uniform
distribution. Even the tiniest contamination of your measurement will
introduce some uneveness. It's far easier to ensure an absolutely even
distribution when generating pseudo-random numbers.
Yes. I had thought for that reason that they were using very low
bit rates, such as 1bit/s (slow enough that you can generate one
photon at a time, and be sure it is gone before the next one).
they now have some up to 1Mbit/s.
I doubt that it would be difficult to pick an arbitrary possible value
for the Borel normality test, and design a deliberately defective
pseudo-random number generator that would, on average, produce
As noted before, one way to remove bias from a hardware random
bit generator is to XOR with a cryptographically secure PRNG.
I suppose one could also use two different secure PRNGs and
XOR them together.