Dear Shawn,

Our methodrology how to extract out hardware? information via the random number generation such as https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.04410 seems to be universal. Therefore, any quantum computers can use our methods.

However, up to now, we have not yet tried the implementation by Q#. But, the programming is too simple in our methods.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Dear Satyavaraou,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I think that your question why there was no such quantum computer was made till date is good. Honestly speaking, I do not know it. Quantum random number generation is usually implemented by quantum photonics as seen in two good reviews https://www.nature.com/articles/npjqi201621 and https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015004 . This can be taken as the specific implementation of one-qubit quantum device. However, almost all implementations are not universal in the sense of computation. To inspire the quantum-originated application such like your question, I wrote this essay.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Dear Prof. Shikano, thank you for this well-written essay on random number generators. I have just maybe a comment when you speak of the certification of randomness using Bell's tests, you add: "However, for any randomness expansion protocols, a one-bit random seed is required." In fact, I think that you need less than a bit, anthough always an initial random element is needed. Recent results [Colbeck, R. and Renner, R., (2012). Free randomness can be amplified. Nature Physics, 8(6), 450.; Pütz, G., Rosset, D., Barnea, T.J., Liang, Y.C. and Gisin, N. (2014). Arbitrarily small amount of measurement independence is sufficient to manifest quantum nonlocality. Physical Review Letters, 113(19), 190402] showed that it is not even necessary to have a single genuinely random bit from the outset, but it is sufficient to introduce an arbitrarily small amount of initial randomness (i.e., of measurement independence) to generate virtually unbounded randomness.

In my essay I also describe new ideas on classical randomness (an argument developed together with Gisin) and I think this could be of interest for you.

I wish you the best for the contest, high rate from my side!

Flavio

    Dear Flavio,

    Thank you so much for your critical comments.

    > In fact, I think that you need less than a bit, anthough always an initial random element is needed.

    That's true. However, we still need an initial RANDOM element. Therefore, for the ultimate security purpose, it is not enough for "unpredictable" random number generator.

    I will definitely read your essay. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

    Best wishes,

    Yutaka

    8 days later

    Prof. Shikano,

    You are perhaps young enough as to not be familiar with a once popular decorative lighting fixture generally referred to as a "Lava Lamp". I have occasionally wondered whether they might present a sort of hybrid of both classical and quantum predictability. Design-wise, they are a simple transparent vessel shaped a bit like the chimney of a kerosene lantern but tapering to a rounded closed upper end; filled with a transparent viscous liquid and a viscous colored inclusion that does not mix with the medium. A high intensity light producing a large amount of heat in the base section results in a thermodynamic response by the colored inclusion which forms blobs of gel which rise in the vessel til they cool at the upper end enough to descend. Usually this process produces a variety of number and sizes of colorful blobs constantly changing in shapes and rising and falling to become recombined in a blob being heated at the base section.

    Just one would produce a random continuous function which would be complex enough to challenge any classical prediction algorithm. A shelf of 8 lamps would provide a byte of encryption and 8 such shelves would provide a 64 bit 'chessboard' of Time Sync scans of random size-shapes. Would that be in any way physically unpredictable to a degree to be an 'ideally' random number generator? Cordially, jrc

      Lava Lamp video

      youtube.com/watch?/v=L7QQh5lq0

      22 days later

      Thank you so much for providing your paper. Sorry for the late reply. Your chaotic RNG result is interesting. However, this can be in principle predictable.

      Dear John,

      First of all, thank you so much for reading my essay article. Sorry for the late reply to your message.

      It is good to hear about your suggestion on "Lava Lamp" as the hybrid quantum-classical random number generator. Surely, there are several approaches to build up the "unpredictable" random number generator. This approach is one of them. As the criticism of your suggestion, the basic assumptions are unclear. The physical motion of the lump element of "Lava Lamp" seems to be classically determined. On the other hand, the lumping behavior relies on quantum mechanics. However, nobody have not yet guaranteed that quantum mechanics is the final theory to explain the Natural phenomena. Therefore, we have not yet known whether the probabilistic structure need to explain our physical behaviors or not. This studies lead to provide a new insight on such understanding of Nature.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

      The reference [20] is updated.

      [20] Y. Shikano, K. Tamura, and R. Raymond, Detecting Temporal Correlation via Quantum Random Number Generation, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 315, 18 - 25 (2020).

      The line is available from http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.315.2.

      6 days later

      Dear Yutaka,

      You are exactly correct in saying quantum computers are difficult to realize. Thank you for the reference that there is a "one Qubit" computer, I will try to get that paper.

      I hope you will have some CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy".....

      Best

      =snp

      5 days later

      Dear Satyavaraou,

      Thank you so much for sharing your essay. I will read it.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

      8 days later

      In 2011, D-Wave Systems released the D-Wave One as they claimed to be the first commercially available quantum computer in the world. In 2012, they claimed a quantum computer using 84 qubits. In 2015, they claimed a quantum computer using 1000 qubit. In 2017, they released the D-Wave 2000Q邃｢ (2000 qubits quantum computer).

      Dear Agus H Budiyanto,

      Thank you so much for pointing out the D-Wave machines, which are often called quantum annealer. On the definition of quantum computer, I do not want to discuss this topics in the community but would like to define this terminology in my essay. The quantum computation in my essay is defined as the Turing universal machine. The gate-based quantum computation mentioned in my essay is true. However, quantum annealer is not yet known up to now. Therefore, D-Wave machines did not be discussed in my essay.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

      Dear Professor Yutaka Shikano

      Thank you for reading my essay and for well thought comments.

      I will supplement any doubts / questions, no problems...

      I was working on this Dynamic Universe Model for the last forty years under the guidance given by Maa VAK (She is Hindu Goddess Saraswathi for wisdom and education). Almost all papers are important, all results are important, many predictions came true. I dont know which result to elaborate, For example...

      -Explains Formation of Astronomical Jets and their high Velocities at Galaxy centers..... The particles traveling parallel to plane of Galaxy suddenly they turn perpendicular at Galaxy center !

      -Predicts Frequency shift in electro-magnetic radiation near huge gravitating masses .... this is in addition to bending of light as predicted by Einstein !!

      -Galaxy Disk formation: Densemass Equations ..... There is no requirement of Blackholes!!

      -Explains gravity disturbances like Pioneer anomaly,.... Until now we considered a single body (eg. Earth) gravitation on another (apple) only.This SITA approach solves the Gravitational catapult !

      -Non-collapsing large scale mass structures .... They dont fall a single lump mass dueto gravitation !

      -Offers Singularity free solutions ...... No Bigbang, No blackholes !!

      -Solving Missing mass in Galaxies, and finds reason for Galaxy circular velocity curves.... ... NO MISSING MASS if you calculate using SITA approach !

      -Blue shifted and red shifted Galaxies co-existence, in an Accelerating Expanding Universe...... 30% are blue shifted Galaxies !

      -Explains the large voids and non-uniform matter densities.... UNIFORM density is not observed

      -Withstands 105 times the Normal Jeans swindle test.... other N-body problems fail at at 1% of any position disturbance

      -Explains VLBI variations.... Other wise very difficult

      - Explains energy to mass conversion....... Energy --->Frequency upshifting --> mass

      -Explains Cosmic-rays formation with the same SITA approach, origins of Cosmic Rays expalined

      - Proposed an UNIVERSE model with full cycle of Energy (from Sun)--- to Mass( neutrinos to Hydrogen- to formation of various elements) ---- to formation of Stars and Sun ---- to Energy again---- NO BIGBANG --- No Blackholes etc...

      I can not just explain 40 years of research done in just 9 page essay, I just gave main points.... I am sorry ....

      I just rated your essay now much better than above average, now your is rating is 5.3. Best wishes to your essay

      Please contact me " snp.gupta@gmail.com "

      Warm regards

      =snp

        Your essay was quite short and direct and enjoyable to read. And you raise a very interesting issue. I think the concept of randomness is certainly a fundamental issue.

        As you correctly pointed out, modern computers cannot create a truly random number. Thus, if a truly random could be generated using quantum theory then that would certainly be a very interesting result; should I dare to even call it a breakthrough?

        However, this immediately leads to some questions. How could we even know, let alone verify, that the number(s) that were generated are, indeed, truly random? Would we use a frequentist characterization of randomness (e.g., von Mises)? Or a "patternless" characterization of randomness (e.g., Chaitin)? Or would the generation of something truly random itself shed light on this question and thus help to define what actually is truly random?

        (Note: I skimmed your arXiv paper and thus I realize that you considered both perspectives. However, is it not possible for a series of truly random numbers to not be equally distributed or for some kind of pattern to be perceived in the series? This reminds me of the Surprise Test Paradox. If it is thought that a pattern is impossible then the generation of a pattern would be the most unpredictable outcome.)

        All interesting questions. I wish you well in the contest.

          Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

          Thank you so much for sharing your experience and voting my essay as well. Let me give my opinion on this essay contest. In this essay contest, the goals are

          -- Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology;

          -- Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions; and,

          -- Provide an arena for discussion and exchange of ideas regarding foundational questions.

          I think that our essays and comments are pursued to these goals.

          Best wishes,

          Yutaka

          Dear Jason W Steinmetz,

          Thank you so much for reading my essay and sharing your comments.

          > Thus, if a truly random could be generated using quantum theory then that would certainly be a very interesting result; should I dare to even call it a breakthrough?

          I agree with this breakthrough. In our recent paper, we discussed the types of the random numbers, which call the product randomness and process randomness. In these classifications, we have to discuss what the true randomness is. On the Surprise Test Paradox, thank you so much for pointing out this paradox connected to the true random numbers.

          It is noted that I would like to discuss the difference between the true random number generation and the unpredictable random number generation. In my feeling, which is not exactly discussed under my current knowledge, this seems to be different. In the further research, I would like to study this difference.

          Thank you so much for your comments during the quarantine time of the COVID-19.

          Best wishes,

          Yutaka

          Hi Yutaka,

          Thank you for the wonderful historical piece on random number generators. I certainly agree with your final quote that the ultimate application of a one-qubit quantum computer is to generate random numbers. How do you you think this would apply to qudits? For example, if I had a ququart, then I could the 4D subspace into 2 x 2 qubit subspace and essentially generate a two qubit random string.

          What do you think if you were to generate the probabilistic seed from an external environment? There have been several Bell experiments where the physicists used thermal light emitted from stars to generate their randomness in the experiment.

          I hope you get a chance to look at my essay. We share several very similar ideas. In my essay, I consider randomness as arising from an unobserved environment as limiting the description of a Turing machine to indeterministic theories.

          Thanks,

          Michael

            Hi Michael,

            Thank you so much for your interest on my essay.

            > How do you you think this would apply to qudits?

            A la the non-binary representation of the random number generation, qudit case should be applied to the "d"git representation of the random numbers. From "d"git representation to the binary one, several mathematical deterministic functions are well known.

            > What do you think if you were to generate the probabilistic seed from an external environment?

            This question leads to what an external environment is. As mentioned in my essay, N-body environment is essentially predictable. Maybe, this is not efficiently computed. On the formal definition of "environment", this is not controlled. On the other hand, my previous statement seems to be contradicted. Therefore, its boundary is wobbly.

            Finally, I enjoyed reading your essay and commented at your essay thread.

            Best wishes,

            Yutaka