Show HN: Play with real quantum physics in your browser(quantum.orgsoft.org)
quantum.orgsoft.org
Show HN: Play with real quantum physics in your browser
https://quantum.orgsoft.org
77 comments
Hey HN! Creator here. Sorry for the downtime and dizzying spinning coins.
I was surprised to see this on the frontpage this morning and the scale is pushing the limits of our quantum randomness generator
It should be working again now as I'm pushing fixes. Thanks for your patience.
I was surprised to see this on the frontpage this morning and the scale is pushing the limits of our quantum randomness generator
It should be working again now as I'm pushing fixes. Thanks for your patience.
Cool project!
quantum physicist here. I code with quantum computers (well, simulators most of the time) quite a lot.
This is a cool demo and a great first effort, but does it really use IBM's quantum computer? From my experience, the queues are generally quite long and and it takes atleast 10-15 secs from submission to getting your results back. And getting a single bit back is hugely inefficient. My guess is that you are submitting a circuit with hadamard on all the qubits with 1000-10000 shots and storing the results and showing them to people one by one? This might be misleading as you are not actually connected to the ibm quantum computer and generating random numbers in real-time.
Plus, since the ibm quantum comptuers exhibit a lot of noise, you are not getting truly random numbers. A better introduction to generating random numbers and also certifying them is available: https://github.com/dorahacksglobal/quantum-randomness-genera...
You can play with this on qBraid.com and try out even more quantum computers. We actually used this as a hackathon challenge at South Carolina Hackathon. Keep on building and join us at future events!
This is a cool demo and a great first effort, but does it really use IBM's quantum computer? From my experience, the queues are generally quite long and and it takes atleast 10-15 secs from submission to getting your results back. And getting a single bit back is hugely inefficient. My guess is that you are submitting a circuit with hadamard on all the qubits with 1000-10000 shots and storing the results and showing them to people one by one? This might be misleading as you are not actually connected to the ibm quantum computer and generating random numbers in real-time.
Plus, since the ibm quantum comptuers exhibit a lot of noise, you are not getting truly random numbers. A better introduction to generating random numbers and also certifying them is available: https://github.com/dorahacksglobal/quantum-randomness-genera...
You can play with this on qBraid.com and try out even more quantum computers. We actually used this as a hackathon challenge at South Carolina Hackathon. Keep on building and join us at future events!
Hi real quantum physicist, yup, you pretty much got it. This is a prototype demo of the concept – and is using real IBM quantum computers. The queues are between 10s and 10min generally.
This is explained very closely to what you've said in the "Technical details" help section. Occasionally you'll get a real-time result. I'll check out the links you sent next, thank you!
Do you think qBraid could support this with more real-time latency?
This is explained very closely to what you've said in the "Technical details" help section. Occasionally you'll get a real-time result. I'll check out the links you sent next, thank you!
Do you think qBraid could support this with more real-time latency?
Unfortunately, qBraid cannot help with the real-time latency. For that matter, I don't think anyone is aiming for get better latency for these calculations. The calculations that people have been focusing on, to run on a quantum computer are where quantum computers could provide a potential exponential speedup (e.g. quantum chemistry simulation, optimization problems, etc.), so, that big improvement is what people care about and none of those use cases, require low latency. In fact, IBM might be the best experience you might get anyway.
What you did was a cool experiment, but, given our current understanding of quantum computing hardware will not scale. Random number generation has to be incredibly cheap and I remember encountering a few startups in the past that used photonics to generate random numbers.
What you did was a cool experiment, but, given our current understanding of quantum computing hardware will not scale. Random number generation has to be incredibly cheap and I remember encountering a few startups in the past that used photonics to generate random numbers.
A few years ago I heard a story on NPR about someone who built a site that also used the IBM quantum backend. They had you input a question about what you should do with your life (I think the example was "Should I grow a beard?"). Then the quantum backend would give you a yes or no answer.
The idea here is that if you believe the many worlds interpretation then that quantum decision splits the universe in two, and in one universe you grow a beard, and in the other you don't.
I thought it was a fun idea.
The idea here is that if you believe the many worlds interpretation then that quantum decision splits the universe in two, and in one universe you grow a beard, and in the other you don't.
I thought it was a fun idea.
That is a fun idea. With enough quantum computing power, we might be able to spawn enough universes fast enough to crash The Simulation. Maybe even escape containment and access the quantum hypervisor!
Only to discover there is another layer
This is a little silly, of course, because processor-provided random number generators (e.g., RDRAND) already incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena [1].
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/behind-intels-new-randomnumber-gen...
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/behind-intels-new-randomnumber-gen...
Isn’t that what happens without the need of a quantum computer…
Considering this states its talking to an actual quantum computer somewhere(at least that's what I'm led to believe by the "Connected to <some instance somewhere>" in the bottom right), I'd imagine this has gotten hugged to death, and hence why we are only seeing the spinning coins rather than it actually resolving.
You are precisely right.
As someone that has basically zero background in quantum, is there some kind of "aha" thing I'm supposed to observe here?
The details for what a quantum coin flip is has the description "your friends will think you're a wizard."
Why? I certainly don't think I'm a wizard right now.
The details for what a quantum coin flip is has the description "your friends will think you're a wizard."
Why? I certainly don't think I'm a wizard right now.
When I click the coin I see an animation of 7-8 blurry coins spinning. Further clicking seems to have no effect. Is something else supposed to happen?
It's not true that computer randomness is predictable, all recent computers have entropy sources which are essentially quantum in nature - thermal noise.
Thermal noise entropy is probably good enough for most practical uses, but it's still fundamentally producing a seed value that can be captured, misused, or bruteforced, right? Also curious if there are monte-carlo models looking at this to see "how uniformly random" they look.
Edit: I think figure 3 in this study is what I'm looking for. They define the inconsistency I described as "spectral pivoting".
> This discrepancy is because the Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem holds in the thermodynamic limit, while these simulations are for finite lattices
I think thermodynamic limit here means, it needs to be way too hot?
https://arxiv.org/html/2403.09078v1
Edit: I think figure 3 in this study is what I'm looking for. They define the inconsistency I described as "spectral pivoting".
> This discrepancy is because the Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem holds in the thermodynamic limit, while these simulations are for finite lattices
I think thermodynamic limit here means, it needs to be way too hot?
https://arxiv.org/html/2403.09078v1
In practice it would be very difficult to predict RDRAND outputs. Even so I believe the truly paranoid can use RDSEED to skip the PRNG step. Not qualified at all to talk about how they de-bias the measurements.
Thank you for sharing!
As a small remark, classical and quantum coins are equally susceptible to bias. So the initial intro is a bit misleading.
As a small remark, classical and quantum coins are equally susceptible to bias. So the initial intro is a bit misleading.
People using quantum computers for random uncorrelated 50/50 bitstrings makes me unreasonably angry (disclaimer: employer in profile, this is my personal opinion). At best, it's just a test of how well we've got the calibration dialed in, how isolated the qubits are, etc. Fine as a test "does the machine do what its manufacturer claims," but otherwise a tragic waste of resources. Hardware RNGs can beat any quantum computer on bandwidth and reliability for a few pennies, versus a multimillion dollar behemoth.
That said... as a demo of a stack using quantum cloud compute, it's all in good fun and I shouldn't be a stick in the mud.
That said... as a demo of a stack using quantum cloud compute, it's all in good fun and I shouldn't be a stick in the mud.
I watched how it works, but it seems the rotation is just an animation and a fake. There are two requests: /flip and /info. When you click mouse button, the /flip request is GET immediately and it returns a result of 1(eagle) or 0. After that the coin animation begins with requests to /info which always returns the same response for no clear reason. After several /info requests the coin eventually stops without receiving any new results.
$ curl https://quantum.orgsoft.org/info
{"status":"ok","message":"Connected to IBM Eagle r3 (127 qubits)","display_name":"Eagle r3 (127 qubits)","alias":"ibm_kyiv","version":"1.20.22","num_qubits":127,"processor":"Eagle r3","url":"https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources?system=ibm_kyiv"}
$ curl https://quantum.orgsoft.org/flip
1
$ curl https://quantum.orgsoft.org/info
{"status":"ok","message":"Connected to IBM Eagle r3 (127 qubits)","display_name":"Eagle r3 (127 qubits)","alias":"ibm_kyiv","version":"1.20.22","num_qubits":127,"processor":"Eagle r3","url":"https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources?system=ibm_kyiv"}
$ curl https://quantum.orgsoft.org/flip
1
Quantum logic gate > Universal logic gates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic_gate#Universal_q...
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37379123 :
> [ Rx, Ry, Rz, P, CCNOT, CNOT, H, S, T ]
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341752 :
>> How many ways are there to roll a {2, 8, or 6}-sided die with qubits and quantum embedding?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42092621 :
> Exercise: Implement a QuantumQ circuit puzzle level with Cirq or QISkit in a Jupyter notebook
ray-pH/quantumQ > [Godot] "Web WASM build" issue #5: https://github.com/ray-pH/quantumQ/issues/5
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37379123 :
> [ Rx, Ry, Rz, P, CCNOT, CNOT, H, S, T ]
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341752 :
>> How many ways are there to roll a {2, 8, or 6}-sided die with qubits and quantum embedding?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42092621 :
> Exercise: Implement a QuantumQ circuit puzzle level with Cirq or QISkit in a Jupyter notebook
ray-pH/quantumQ > [Godot] "Web WASM build" issue #5: https://github.com/ray-pH/quantumQ/issues/5
From https://quantumflytrap.com/scientists/ :
> [Quantum Flytrap] Virtual Lab is a virtual optical table. With a drag and drop interface, you can show phenomena, recreate existing experiments, and prototype new ones.
> Within this environment it is possible to recreate interference, quantum cryptography protocols, to show entanglement, Bell test, quantum teleportation, and the many-worlds interpretation.
> [Quantum Flytrap] Virtual Lab is a virtual optical table. With a drag and drop interface, you can show phenomena, recreate existing experiments, and prototype new ones.
> Within this environment it is possible to recreate interference, quantum cryptography protocols, to show entanglement, Bell test, quantum teleportation, and the many-worlds interpretation.
I've wondered for a long time what the user experience for quantum computing will look like. I had imagined some library with a type for "qbit" and an dsl for making them interact in certain ways and then some kind of async thing where your classical code could run locally while periodically shuttling data to and from wherever the quantum computer is.
This isn't quite that but I guess it's a first step.
This isn't quite that but I guess it's a first step.
They already exist
import numpy as np
from qiskit import QuantumCircuit
# 1. A quantum circuit for preparing the quantum state |000> + i |111> / √2
qc = QuantumCircuit(3)
# generate superposition
qc.h(0)
# add quantum phase
qc.p(np.pi / 2, 0)
# 0th-qubit-Controlled-NOT gate on 1st qubit
qc.cx(0, 1)
# 0th-qubit-Controlled-NOT gate on 2nd qubit
qc.cx(0, 2)Thanks for the pointer to qiskit, I'm gonna go learn...
Question from someone who's not going to even pretend to understand quantum physics..
The explanation says the visualization shows the coin in all possible states. I'm trying to count quickly and it seems like about 8. Does all possible states mean there's an infinite number and 8 are shown for visualization purposes, or is there a finite predictable number of possible states.
The explanation says the visualization shows the coin in all possible states. I'm trying to count quickly and it seems like about 8. Does all possible states mean there's an infinite number and 8 are shown for visualization purposes, or is there a finite predictable number of possible states.
Quantum mechanics tells us that the qubit (coin) can exist in any linear superposition of heads and tails. To express this you write a|heads> + b|tails> the only constraint is that a^2 + b^2 must equal 1. Now why would that be the constraint? It is because a^2 and b^2 are the probabilities of measuring heads and tails respectively.
In this example the coin is put into the state where an and b equal 1/sqrt(2) to give an equal probability of each outcome. So there is exactly one state associated with the coin. Now this state does lead to two possible outcomes but the underlying state (that can not be directly observed) is exactly one thing.
In this example the coin is put into the state where an and b equal 1/sqrt(2) to give an equal probability of each outcome. So there is exactly one state associated with the coin. Now this state does lead to two possible outcomes but the underlying state (that can not be directly observed) is exactly one thing.
Oh and to be clear the visualization is nonsense it doesn’t relate to anything.
My observation is too weak, the coins keep spinning.
Maybe I am so disconnected from the rest of reality, I count as absolute, non destructive observer?
Maybe I am so disconnected from the rest of reality, I count as absolute, non destructive observer?
You're now entangled with the system, and so we will need someone else to observe you.
[deleted]
Do you by any chance have a friend named Wigner?
This seems to do roughly the same as the Universe Splitter [0]. (Which used to be free? Not sure.)
[0] https://cheapuniverses.com/
Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30499169
[0] https://cheapuniverses.com/
Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30499169
In the many worlds interpretation, if one connected this computer to a machine that would instantly kill you if the result was heads, you as the observer should find that you never die, but rather that the machine always seems to come up tails. Is that correct? Might be cool for some kind of euthanasia patient to experience.
If it maimed you horribly instead, you'd quickly find that you'd still have to deal with the consequences.
The animation reminds me me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devs_(TV_series)
A physical coin is biased?
Empirically, human-flipped coins have about a 1% bias toward the same side they started on: https://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/math-history/hap7-fifty-o...
But why it says "favors heads ~51%"
I feel like when I flip a physical coin it pretty much always lands on exactly the same side unless I flip it real wierd.
Cool idea! This is a really clever way to demo a real-world circuit!
Is this truly live or did they batch random numbers ahead of time?
Technical Details section of help explains "we buffer batches of coin flips in advance to ensure a responsive experience. Your coin flips are always drawn directly from a quantum circuit, though no necessarily in real-time."
Am I wrong, or would that mean this “quantum flip” can be biased by race conditions, round robin, CDNs, things like that?
In reality, it's a room full of interns flipping quarters and averaging their results in "real time"
yea its not truly random. not sure how predictable the batching or caching is
from the console
> Failed to get quantum result from server
cloudflare connection timed out
> Failed to get quantum result from server
cloudflare connection timed out
I wonder what the cost of running this website is?
Got 2 tails in a row. Must be broken.
_real_?
Tangent, but interesting: how do you get fair samples from a biased coin?
1. You take a string of biased samples like 001011100101
2. you split it in pairs 00 10 11 10 01 01
3. you keep only pairs with a zero and a one in them 10 10 01 01
4. You assign 0 and 1 to them, e.g. 1 1 0 0, this is a fair sampling from an unbiased coin
Why does it work? Because even if p(0) ≠ p(1), p(01) = p(10).
Why does it work? Because even if p(0) ≠ p(1), p(01) = p(10).
Instead of discounting some of the results, can we alternate the value of the coin each toss? So on the first flip, heads is 0 and tails is 1, then on the next flip, heads is 1 and tails is 0.
That'll obtain the right average but won't have the same pairwise relations as an independent, unbiased coin.
That's probably easiest to see if you imagine approaching an infinitely biased coin (100% heads, 0% tails). Your strategy alternates between 0 and 1 almost always. The listed strategy throws away most flips but gives actualy unbiased results when a pair does pass.
Another way to look at it is from an entropy perspective. An unbiased, independent coin flip has 1 bit of entropy. A biased coin with, e.g., 99% heads has 0.0807 bits of entropy. On average, you need at least 12.377 such flips to emulate an unbiased, independent flip. Any strategy without some sort of rejection/continuation/... (like your proposal) is doomed to fail.
I haven't checked if their proposal is actually optimal. Empirically, it's suggestive of having room for improvement. I'm seeing something like 101 flips on average instead of 12.377 for that 99% bias example.
That's probably easiest to see if you imagine approaching an infinitely biased coin (100% heads, 0% tails). Your strategy alternates between 0 and 1 almost always. The listed strategy throws away most flips but gives actualy unbiased results when a pair does pass.
Another way to look at it is from an entropy perspective. An unbiased, independent coin flip has 1 bit of entropy. A biased coin with, e.g., 99% heads has 0.0807 bits of entropy. On average, you need at least 12.377 such flips to emulate an unbiased, independent flip. Any strategy without some sort of rejection/continuation/... (like your proposal) is doomed to fail.
I haven't checked if their proposal is actually optimal. Empirically, it's suggestive of having room for improvement. I'm seeing something like 101 flips on average instead of 12.377 for that 99% bias example.
A general direction you could go is to use blocks greater than 2. For example, you flip the coin exactly 64 times, and discard the result unless there is exactly 1 tails and 63 heads. This happens about 22% of the time, so it's on average 290 flips to get a single sample. When you do get that sample, you convert the single tails' position within that 64 block into binary, and get a 6 bit number uniformly distributed 0-63, i.e. you get 6 bits of entropy. So on average 6/290=0.02 bits of entropy per flip, twice as good as using blocks of 2, though only a quarter as good as the theoretical upper bound.
I picked "block of 64 with only a single tails" since it was simple, and I'm sure a mathematician could figure out how to optimize it much more, but my general point is to agree that there's definitely ways to get closer to the theoretical upper bound you mentioned.
I picked "block of 64 with only a single tails" since it was simple, and I'm sure a mathematician could figure out how to optimize it much more, but my general point is to agree that there's definitely ways to get closer to the theoretical upper bound you mentioned.
Damn, that is cool
It's a nice trick, but it requires a lot of extra coin flips. Imagine you have a coin with p(1)=0.501, and you want 1000 random bits. With the proposed method, this will take about 4000 coin flips. Surely, since the coin is quite close to being fair, it should be possible to do it with far fewer flips ...
Yeah this is probably the neatest little 5 second math thing I've ever seen. Can't believe I hadn't seen this before.
John von Neumann strikes again!
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_coin#Fair_results_from_a_...
Original paper: https://mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/InBook_Computing_1961_Neuman...
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_coin#Fair_results_from_a_...
Original paper: https://mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/InBook_Computing_1961_Neuman...
Remember you also have to determine the coin is biased and the results are in a biased order.
"An ideal unbiased coin might not correctly model a real coin, which could be biased slightly one way or another. After all, real life is rarely fair."
https://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~michaelm/coinflipext.pdf
"An ideal unbiased coin might not correctly model a real coin, which could be biased slightly one way or another. After all, real life is rarely fair."
https://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~michaelm/coinflipext.pdf
However, that stops working as soon as you have a biased coin with memory. ;)
how do you get biased samples from a fair coin? (say, 0.3)
(this one has less wow, i guess)
1. You take a string of fair samples 0101011101010 2. you split it into chunks of 3 (8 possibilities, so each one is 0.125 chance) 3. 000, 001, 010 -> 1, and all the rest is 0, which will get 0.275 chance
Any better approaches?
(this one has less wow, i guess)
1. You take a string of fair samples 0101011101010 2. you split it into chunks of 3 (8 possibilities, so each one is 0.125 chance) 3. 000, 001, 010 -> 1, and all the rest is 0, which will get 0.275 chance
Any better approaches?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Introducing, Schrödinger's Coin. Powered by a simple Hadamard gate[0] on IBM quantum, with this app you can directly interact with a quantum system to experience true randomness.
Thoughts? Could you see any use cases for yourself of this? Or, does it inspire any other ideas of yours? Curious what others on HN think!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic_gate#Hadamard_ga...