Letting the stars decide

R Anderson — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:09:09 GMT

Why is this considered news worthy?

Letting the stars decide

nc — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:06:56 GMT

I think the owner of this company is misjudging the average person's enthusiasm or understanding of branded "randomness". Most people aren't even aware that randomness is required for the above applications.

Letting the stars decide

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:46:47 GMT

In answer to both the above: TRUE randomness is hard to find (or at least to measure). Try graphing (on "frequency" vs. number axes) the results of your favorite random number generator; make sure you make it generate billions of numbers, or you won't see a pattern emerge!) While it may be of little *direct* interest to most people, neither is how a tunnel-diode works. But they are key devices, that exploit quantum mechanical effects for their function. Sorry Al Einstein, but the Universe DOES play dice, and a *truly random* number generator could be very useful in a large number of QM/micro-electronic applications. But like the transistor, which we all now take for granted, they'd be invisible to people who eventually use them. ( It would also be of great interest to a number of other fields as well including, peripherally, mine (how DO you go about generating 10 billion 'simulated' comets/asteroids with several random properties/conditions?))

Letting the stars decide

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:56:22 GMT

Also, I must point out that the name 'yuzoz' DOESN'T sound very random to me. The chance that all five letters would be from the last half of the alphabet is about 1-in-30. The chance that the result would also be pronouncible is....well it's enough to make me reach for the whiskey.

Letting the stars decide

John Cargnello, Vancouver, Canada — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:32:35 GMT

Fascinating. I know that there is no such thing as a truly random software based RNG’s and hardware based RNG’s are only random until some component fails so these type of ‘environmental RNG’ drawing on random natural events are the latest evolution. I am interested in what sort of QM/micro-electronic applications you are referring to and the importance of a truly randomness to such? Can you point me in the right direction?

Letting the stars decide

Ben Cooper, Chicago, IL — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:01:03 GMT

Well, I think this sounds interesting and fun too. And from an educational perspective, I think anything that gets people thinking about real science and what's going on in space is a good thing.

Letting the stars decide

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:38:15 GMT

To John Cargnello: computer simulation of any component where QM effects are important (the tunnel diode was just an example) *requires* as good a 'RNG' as possible. Software generated ones have sufficed for a long time, but we're now moving into (what I think is mis-named) "nano-tech" - devices where the EE term "current" breaks down; where the counting of individual electrons is necessary. The tunnel diode may have been a poor choice of example, since the physics of it are QM, but its 'classical' properties are not. Here's a better one:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/17/9/036

The authors of this don't explore its possible uses, but those who do (or will) will need to have RNG that can generate several orders-of-magnitude random numbers without "pattern".

A guy that I studied Physics from as an undergrad works in this field