News: 0183433632

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Perfect Randomness Realized For the First Time (phys.org)

(Thursday May 28, 2026 @03:00AM (BeauHD) from the perfectly-unpredictable dept.)


ETH Zurich researchers say they have [1]generated certified "perfect randomness" for the first time by using a quantum Bell-test setup with two entangled superconducting chips connected by a 30-meter cooled link. "In the long term, this work could play a similar role in digital security as atomic clocks do for timekeeping: a physically certified source of randomness that other systems can rely on," reports Phys.org. "Possible applications range from the encryption of sensitive communications and digital identities to public randomness services for lotteries and blockchain applications." From the report:

> They call their method randomness amplification. "This was made possible by an improved so-called Bell-Test with simultaneously high quality and high data rate," says [Renato Renner and Andreas Wallraff]. He and his coworkers use a complex setup that consists of two superconducting chips, which they cool down to very low temperatures close to absolute zero. Each chip represents a quantum bit or qubit, which can take on the states "0" or "1" or any arbitrary superposition of these states. A 30-meter-long tube, which is also cooled down, connects the two chips.

>

> Microwave photons can fly back and forth between them, thus creating quantum mechanical entanglement. This means that a quantum measurement on one qubit, which randomly yields the values "0" or "1," influences automatically and at a distance whether "0" or "1" is measured on the second qubit. The separation of 30 meters ensures that, during the measurement, even at the speed of light, no information can be exchanged between the qubits. This would disturb the perfect randomness.

>

> Wallraff and his team made the choice of the exact type of measurement (or "measurement basis" in technical jargon) on the two qubits depending on an imperfect random number generator. Renner's coworkers could then amplify the randomness of the measurement results further using a special algorithm. "The resulting sequence of zeros and ones is now really perfectly random, and we can even certify that," says Renner. He likens this result to crossing a ridge: "The technical improvements allowed us, for the first time, to create random numbers that will remain perfectly random for all eternityâ"no matter what analytical methods are used to assess their randomness."

The findings have been [2]published in the journal Nature .



[1] https://phys.org/news/2026-05-randomness.html

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10521-8



Wow, Random ! (Score:2)

by greytree ( 7124971 )

Totally !

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

> Totally !

Typical Slashdot first post comment with regards to an article about generating reliable randomness.

Re: (Score:2)

by T34L ( 10503334 )

I know! It's so random!

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

> I know! It's so random!

I can recollect a video of a machine built for a casino as I recall, but I might be wrong. Its purpose was to constantly generate truly random numbers.

Essentially a very large number of quality dice was automatically rolled and finally fell into a row, a horizontal tray actually, to define the result of the dice. The tray itself was part of a conveyor belt and the the dice traveled vertically upward, and each row of dice was captured with an OCR camera to convert into a random number. But I can't find the v

Re: (Score:2)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> ... each row of dice was captured with an OCR camera to convert into a random number ...

I hope they were using base 6 :-)

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

>> ... each row of dice was captured with an OCR camera to convert into a random number ...

> I hope they were using base 6 :-)

Solid point, but wouldn't that somehow make the entire exercise moot? Because that wouldn't result in a truly random and acceptable number ? I suppose you can add a computer to translate, somehow, between Base 6 and Base 10, but I don't think so, (and I'm way out of my league here. [1]A man's got to know his limitations [youtube.com]).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uki4lrLzRaU

Re: (Score:2)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

>>> ... each row of dice was captured with an OCR camera to convert into a random number ...

>> I hope they were using base 6 :-)

> Solid point, but wouldn't that somehow make the entire exercise moot? Because that wouldn't result in a truly random and acceptable number ? I suppose you can add a computer to translate, somehow, between Base 6 and Base 10, but I don't think so, (and I'm way out of my league here. A man's got to know his limitations).

Let's assume the dice faces are random. We have six possible faces. Numbers in a base 6 representation (0-5) conveniently match perfectly. For the given number of dice, the number of digits, all possible numbers in the range are represented. How are they not random? Yes they would need to be converted to decimal, binary, etc depending on the use.

If we interpret the digits as base 10, we are only using 6 out of 10 possible digits. We have gaps in the range. That doesn't seem random. Some values having a z

Re: (Score:1)

by MoneySleeps ( 8022998 )

> I hope they were using base 6 :-)

Careful. You'll get heat from the base 12 fanatics.

Re: (Score:2)

by PacoSuarez ( 530275 )

Probably Dice-O-Matic: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Enjoy!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n8LNxGbZbs

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

> Probably Dice-O-Matic: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

> Enjoy!

That was so long ago as evidenced by the timestamp! No way! Am I that old already?! I think its awesome you managed that citation! 17 years? No way!

BTW: Serious question because someone seriously wise and learned long ago replied to a comment I once made with EXCELLENT advise about LED's for home lighting, but I can longer find the comments, and I'm certain it was in the last 6 years or so, but slashdot seems to have comment retention limits -- and I trusted slashdot, and I was stupid and lazy for doing so.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n8LNxGbZbs

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

I told the person that replied to me they were a God, if that keyword helps. Muchos gracias to anyone in advance that even considers making an effort to assist me. Nerd.

Predictable (Score:2)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

>> Totally !

> Typical Slashdot first post comment with regards to an article about generating reliable randomness.

So its predictable :-)

Re: (Score:2)

by echo123 ( 1266692 )

>>> Totally !

>> Typical Slashdot first post comment with regards to an article about generating reliable randomness.

> So its predictable :-)

I'll opine even more so. Its typical.

Can someone help explain "perfect" randomness? (Score:3)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

I'm curious as to how this is more random than previous sources of randomness we use, specifically the development and recording of electrical shot-noise, or using a source that exhibits completely chaotic interaction with environments - pointing a camera at a lava lamp.

How were they not random enough to be considered perfect?

And I guess while we're at it, do we really truly need an even more perfect random number for cryptography? I'm not aware of any attacks that have broken cryptography by attacking hardware random number systems (though there are those who have exploited poorly implemented software pseudo-RNG)

Re: (Score:2)

by butt0nm4n ( 1736412 )

Im wondering the same thing.

In Bhuddism a central philosophy is everything is dependent on conditions. So whatever number comes out of this clever thing is dependent on the conditions the clever thing was subject to. Those conditions are sufficiently complex that it is unpredictable when they would occur again.

Maybe that's what perfect random is, sufficiently unpredictable?

We need a Math guy or gal, they'll know.

Re:Religion (Score:1)

by kig8472 ( 915313 )

OK, if religion says so, it must be true. No doubts whatsoever.

Re: (Score:2)

by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

Listen to almost any Trump speech. :-)

[Totally perfect, only the best randomness - like no one has ever seen. ]

Re: (Score:2)

by r1348 ( 2567295 )

Probably because true randomness is different than "too many parameters to account for".

The physical interactions you described follow precise laws, it's just that there are way too many interactions to be realistically predictable in real time... for now.

The randomness described in the article derives directly from the statistical nature of quantum physics, so it's non-deterministic by design.

Now to be fair, all deterministic "traditional" physics is an emergent phenomenon of non-deterministic quantum phys

Re: (Score:1)

by sleschdott ( 2110488 )

Regarding hardware RNGs: Theodore Ts'o (of Linux fame) begs to differ. [1]https://daniel-lange.com/docum... [daniel-lange.com]

[1] https://daniel-lange.com/documents/130905_Ted_Tso_on_RDRAND.pdf

Unnecessary expense (Score:2)

by larwe ( 858929 )

Anyone who wants to generate perfect randomness only needs two ingredients: 1. A cat (Not an Australian cat, for genetic reasons). 2. A bag of catnip.

Re: (Score:2)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

I think my wife's conversational topics might also work.

I'm thinking of a number between 0 and 1 (Score:2)

by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 )

Can you guess it?

Knuth wonâ(TM)t stand for it (Score:2)

by k2dk ( 816114 )

Next edition of TAOCP will show why this random algorithm also didnâ(TM)t hold up.

"I achieved perfet randomness before anyone (Score:1)

by ElRabbit ( 2624627 )

was event thinking about it. I do completely random things all day. A random guy told me no latter than last week that I never saw anybody else acting that random before. I am so good a it that they should create a Nobel prize for randomness and give it to me every year. I am gonna give you so much randomness that you gonna cry for it to stop". Donald J. T. A random guy

Harrison's Postulate:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.