Quantum RNG

[James A. Donald]

     --

  John Denker wrote:
 > Quantum processes are in some very narrow theoretical
 > sense more "fundamentally" random than other sources
 > of randomness, such as thermal noise ... but they are
 > not better in any practical sense.
 >
 > The basic quantum process is less sensitive to
 > temperature than a purely thermal process ... but
 > temperature dependence is easily accounted for in any
 > practical situation, and -- more importantly -- there
 > are all sorts of other practical considerations (such
 > as detector dead-time issues) that make real quantum
 > detectors far from ideal.
 >
 > The devil is in the details, and obtaining the raw
 > data from a quantum process is nowhere near necessary
 > and nowhere near sufficient to make a good randomness
 > generator.

And if you want to obtain noise from quantum
indeterminacy, shot noise is much more convenient.
Instead of photons going through a half silvered mirror,
and randomly being reflected or not, you rely on
electrons randomly winding up at the base or the
collector of a transistor.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      /KNHHNPZ6iBsO6gvfPyHJxLKSHaisGIVaOLrrfDv
      4uxfFO8C/uuRkbz3u2rG4U8fpFKfzj+zr6czKsf69

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com