|
| 19 Apr 2012 10:07 AM |
physics0054.anu.edu.au/index.php
The random numbers are generated in real-time in our lab by measuring the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum. The vacuum is described very differently in the quantum mechanical context than in the classical context. Traditionally, a vacuum is considered as a space that is empty of matter or photons. Quantum mechanically, however, that same space resembles a sea of virtual particles appearing and disappearing all the time. This results in the fact that the vacuum does not possess a zero-point energy, and consequently the electo-magnetic field describing this vacuum possesses random fluctuations in phase and amplitude at all frequencies. By carefully measuring these fluctuations, they are able to generate ultra-high bandwidth random numbers. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 10:10 AM |
or we could just use pseudo-random
I mean no-one playing a game examines patterns and then criticses it for using a mildly bad random generation algorithm... Right? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 10:11 AM |
| i wnat only prfct wrok. no faek random numbrs |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cymru72
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Jan 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4362 |
|
| |
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 11:34 AM |
"I mean no-one playing a game examines patterns and then criticses it for using a mildly bad random generation algorithm... Right?"
Unless it's online poker. There are actual examples of people exploiting bad randomness algorithms used for online poker in the wild. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 12:22 PM |
"There are actual examples of people exploiting bad randomness algorithms used for online poker in the wild."
Oh god that is ridiculously sad
if the people who spent the time finding these exploits went out and got a job, it'd save them so much time |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NVI
|
  |
| Joined: 11 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4744 |
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 04:34 PM |
| Such bullet-proof logic right here, someone get him an award |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 04:54 PM |
These numbers are pseudo random numbers too, you know.
Nothing is random. Even when you throw a dice, it isn't really random. If it was really random, you would be unable to know what the result would be before it happens. This is not the case when you throw a dice, because, if you examined every single factor that would make the dice turn, you would be able to know exactly what it would fall on.
Every single thing that happens happens before of other things that happened. It's all events that cause other events that cause other events that cause other events...
As long as it is possible to know what the result of something will be before it happens, that means it isn't truly random. And it is always possible to know what the result of something will be, it's just that, sometimes, you'll need to take into consideration trillions of factors. But it's still not truly random. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sncplay42
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 11891 |
|
|
| 19 Apr 2012 05:27 PM |
"And it is always possible to know what the result of something will be"
You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics. One of the key features of quantum physics is that the position of particles are described *by probability distributions*, and the interference between them is how particles interact, so it's fundamental and can't be removed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 06:19 AM |
@sncplay
but even that probably is based on some "non-random" thing, even though we will probably never be able to find, access or understand it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Varp
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 5333 |
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 08:15 AM |
"ultra-high bandwidth random numbers"
Now, I'm no expert on information theory, but I'm pretty sure that mathematicians don't talk about the bandwidth of a random number or distribution of numbers.
"You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics. One of the key features of quantum physics is that the position of particles are described *by probability distributions*, and the interference between them is how particles interact, so it's fundamental and can't be removed."
Quantum physics says that particles tend to move in certain ways with a certain probability. It does not say that this randomness is an intrinsic property of atoms. It's like if you threw a bunch of darts at a target. You could make the observation that they fall into a certain distribution, but really, each dart landed where it did because of how you threw it, not because of the distribution.
More troublingly though, the hypotheses "physics isn't deterministic" and "physics is deterministic" are not really scientific, since the only experiment to prove or disprove it would be to return the entire universe to a state it's been in before and to see if it progresses in the same way.
Of course, if you just want psuedo-random numbers, none of that should matter to you. Just set up the apparatus, generate a large amount of samples, then run some of randomness on them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pighead10
|
  |
| Joined: 03 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10341 |
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 08:34 AM |
"You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics." How many people does that not apply to?
Nothing is truly random - if you know the input, you will know the output. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 10:35 AM |
Guys, when I said whatever I said, like why not use pseudo random or whatever I said, I meant a computing algorithm. I'm not religious so I already know nothing is random ever, I just meant that the only advantage you're going to get from using a vacuum or whatever this is doing, is it's not going to be detectable by the end user, I was pointing out that the chance of the end user abusing a flaw is minuscule, however stravant notified me of the poker thing which I hadn't thought about.
I'm just assuming you're all on about my statement though. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pighead10
|
  |
| Joined: 03 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10341 |
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 10:54 AM |
" I'm not religious so I already know nothing is random ever"
THAT
LOL |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Apr 2012 11:14 PM |
"You're obviously not familiar with quantum physics. One of the key features of quantum physics is that the position of particles are described *by probability distributions*, and the interference between them is how particles interact, so it's fundamental and can't be removed."
Nothing can be random. Everything that happens happens because of specific reasons. There is just nothing that is random; everything that happens will happen in a certain way that could be determined by certain factors, of which none is random. If you know the "value" of each of these factors, you can know what will happen.
And yes, this indeed means we can predict the future with 100% accuracy. If we knew every single thing about the universe as it is right now, and if our brains were capable of analyzing all of that information, then we could know every single thing about how the universe will be in any moment in the future, AKA: predict the future.
However, there are two things preventing us from doing that:
1. We don't know every single thing about the universe as it is right now. 2. Our brains aren't capable of analyzing so much information.
"How many people does that not apply to?"
0.00000000001%
"Nothing is truly random - if you know the input, you will know the output."
Indeed, though there is a small flaw in what you said:
You must not only know the input, but also be able to process it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
smurf279
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Mar 2010 |
| Total Posts: 6871 |
|
| |
|
myrkos
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Sep 2010 |
| Total Posts: 8072 |
|
|
| 21 Apr 2012 01:04 AM |
pi is 4
http:// i. stack .imgur DOT com/ GU8wd.jpg |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Oysi
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jul 2009 |
| Total Posts: 9058 |
|
| |
|
TheMyrco
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15105 |
|
|
| 21 Apr 2012 03:53 AM |
This is how my time elapsed:
*Sees title* Thinks: "Oh god, inb4extreme math" *Enters thread* Thinks: "Good question...mhmmm" *Scrolls down and sees responses* Brain: "*Ka-blam* && Intelligence += 10" *Reads Oysi's comment* Thinks: "inb4flamewar =-=" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 21 Apr 2012 04:02 AM |
| It's funny because we all actually are meant to do what we're doing, so there's really no reason to consider ourselves lazy or anything, we can just blame it on lack of randomness :) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 21 Apr 2012 01:23 PM |
"I like how Julien thinks he knows that what he says is true."
It is true, actually, and, if you think about it, it is obvious that it is true. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 21 Apr 2012 03:45 PM |
guys any good quantum mechanics books recommendations? i need a good start for particle physics.
i got into a group of finnish students who will visit CERN next yr :D |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Aerideyn
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Jan 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1882 |
|
|
| 22 Apr 2012 01:39 AM |
So what implications does a universe without any randomness have on free will? How does a system such as the universe come into its current state? do we assume it had a "seed" of sorts which set everything going? If so was that seed itself truely random?
I am agnostic, i think that at some point something truely random had to happen at some point to cause the universe to crystalize out of the nothing - if that something can be called a god... then fine but if something random happened once i think its not so hard to think it happens on a regular basis to allow us free will, that same thing i suspect also binds our consciousness to our bodies and prevent us living as other people at will.
Anyway im done with my mystical rant.. ill be off ^_^.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 22 Apr 2012 02:22 AM |
Actually. it was already proven that our brain doesn't really have a will or anything, it's just atoms and energy that move around and have fun with our neurons... erm..
And if you could know exactly the status of everything in a person's brain, then you could know exactly what he is thinking about...
Don't worry, though, we didn't invent a machine yet that lets us know exactly what your neurons are thinking about...
Huh..
Anyway, as for what started the universe, I have already thought about that, and the only conclusion I could find, which actually makes a lot of sense, to me, is this:
The universe has never started, it has existed forever and it has never started to exist.
As for the big bang, that's still a theory, btw. It is just one of many hypotheses. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|