Michael Press <email@example.com> writes: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Phil Carmody <email@example.com> wrote: > > > Michael Press <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > In article > > > <0.ef56b5652decd19bb478.20121128013501GMT.email@example.com>, > > > Ben Bacarisse <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Good quality, hardware-generated random number sequences (if our current > > > > understanding of quantum effects is correct) are random in a different > > > > way to the digits of pi. It helps if the terminology is be able to > > > > distinguish between them. > > > > > > I do not see how quantum effects can be used to generate > > > random sequences. Coherent systems are stable and highly, > > > if not perfectly, predictable. > > > > > > Hardware generated random sequences usually read Schottky > > > noise off some device (a sound card in a computer) and use > > > that. This can be modeled using entirely classical physics. > > > > Are you sure? Shottky noise is white noise, and thus is > > indistinguishable from thermal (Johnson-Nyquist) noise. > > So you can statistically model it the same way, but that > > doesn't mean it's actually caused by classical mechanics. > > I can't find any references to Shottky noise that don't > > mention some quantum effect. > > _What_ quantum effect?
Things like photons at discrete energy levels. Or electrons jumping between discrete energy levels.
Phil -- I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.
Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.