you can use a five bit real quantum computer now for free

[Strange]

quantum computers are able to generate random numbers by a quantum effect

 

 

Do you have a reference to this? Because I have not come across this before...

 

 

 

intel chips are not able to generate a random number by a quantum effect

 

They use thermal noise. Can you prove that this is less random than quantum effects? Or that it is not a TRNG?

[farolero]

i came across this:

 

https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qstage/#/community/question?questionId=1afebf8a829741e6a69cb1a31fa3083b

 

 

i dont know if thermal noise would involve a quantum effect but if it doesnt is not trully random cause it will be the same in all worlds given same initial conditions

 

 

i think you confuse trully random with trully hard to break

Edited January 18, 2017 by farolero

[Thorham]

You can't generate true random numbers through computation, but you can add true random number generators to computers.

[Strange]

i came across this:

 

https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qstage/#/community/question?questionId=1afebf8a829741e6a69cb1a31fa3083b

 

 

i dont know if thermal noise would involve a quantum effect but if it doesnt is not trully random cause it will be the same in all worlds given same initial conditions

 

OK. I get it. You claim that only quantum effects are truly random.

 

Do you have a reference that supports this claim? (How many more times do I have to ask?)

Or is it something you made up yourself?

 

 

Note: the many worlds interpretation is not really relevant as:

 

(1) there is no evidence that such other worlds exist;

 

(2) we have no access to the results in those other worlds so we cannot use them to distinguish truly random numbers generated by quantum effects from truly random numbers generated by non-quantum effects

 

(3) other interpretations result in a single value and so the claim that quantum effects produce different random results is not an essential part of QM.

[Lord Antares]

There is a big misunderstanding between farolero and the rest of the posters. I didn't want to comment on it because of the modnote, but since the discussion continued, I will clarify.

 

OP is technically right, but also completely wrong in another regard.

 

What he is trying to say is that a coin toss (as well as white noise) isn't TECHNICALLY RANDOM because it is affected by the physics of how the coin is tossed, at which angles, at what speed etc. He said that if, in two different universes you flipped a coin with exactly the same force, angle etc. you would always get the same result. This is correct. Likewise, white noise is affected by a series of unpredictable circumstances, but not completely random. Of course, this is all greatly unpredictable and therefore as good as random, but he is talking about technicalities.

 

However, what he fails to realize is that by this logic, there exists no such thing as randomness. Everything happens as a result of something else, and therefore randomness isn't a thing. So by this logic, to answer the question, neither the random.org site or a quantum computer is technically random, but they are so unpredictable that they practically are.

 

I hope that clarifies it, farolero.

[Delta1212]

There is a big misunderstanding between farolero and the rest of the posters. I didn't want to comment on it because of the modnote, but since the discussion continued, I will clarify.

 

OP is technically right, but also completely wrong in another regard.

 

What he is trying to say is that a coin toss (as well as white noise) isn't TECHNICALLY RANDOM because it is affected by the physics of how the coin is tossed, at which angles, at what speed etc. He said that if, in two different universes you flipped a coin with exactly the same force, angle etc. you would always get the same result. This is correct. Likewise, white noise is affected by a series of unpredictable circumstances, but not completely random. Of course, this is all greatly unpredictable and therefore as good as random, but he is talking about technicalities.

 

However, what he fails to realize is that by this logic, there exists no such thing as randomness. Everything happens as a result of something else, and therefore randomness isn't a thing. So by this logic, to answer the question, neither the random.org site or a quantum computer is technically random, but they are so unpredictable that they practically are.

 

I hope that clarifies it, farolero.

There are quantum processes that are probabilistically random and apparently without a proximate cause. We don't live in a clockwork universe, just one that usually approximates a clockwork universe at classical scales.

[farolero]

heres a videopost on experiments im conducting on randomness and the observer

 

i have an opinion on how the observer affects the randomness of the double slit experiment:

 

what does the photon make go through left or right slit?

 

the observer choses the slit

 

what happens if there are two observers and one choses left and the other right

 

the observer doesnt chose what slit exists but which slit dont exist

if one observer choses left slit and the other right not to exist none exist but in a thrid wolrd maybe left slit will have more appeal to both observers so that will exist

 

this means weve been blaming alll the times others for what is our ultimate responsability

 

each and each single person is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on on the world, maybe the ostricht is quantum

edit:

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

[Strange]

what does the photon make go through left or right slit?

 

the observer choses the slit

 

what happens if there are two observers and one choses left and the other right

 

 

 

The observer doesn't necessarily choose the slit.

 

The observer can detect which slit the photon goes through and this destroys the interference pattern.

 

And note that "observer" just means any measurement device. You cannot measure a photon going through both left and right and so you final question doesn't really make sense.

 

This has nothing to do with consciousness.

[Mordred]

One of the biggest confusions in QM is its use "Observer" as Strange correctly mentioned its any measurement device. Only a quanta or above is measurable. That final bit has nothing to do with measurement equipment capability. As it takes a quanta to perform interferance etc via "Action" You can google the physics definition of action.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Mordred

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

farolero,

 

Please stick to the topic. If you wish to discuss things outside of the OP, then please start a new thread.

 

It would also be appreciated if other members not assist in dragging threads off topic by replying to off topic posts.