One must understand that there is no instantaneous action at a distance that alters something about one entangled particle when its partner is measured. It is only when both particles are measured, and the measurements results brought together, at most at light speed, and compared, that the entanglement is manifest. Then, if both parties agree in advance to measure the same state, for example the circular polarization of a photon, that, surprisingly, the distant measurements always happen to agree, or always are opposite. But if one party measures circular polarization, and other measures linear polarization in some direction, the results will have no correlation. If the NSA were providing random bits, it would be simplest to provide standard digital bits, and keep a copy for itself. -- Gene On Wednesday, May 31, 2017, 5:21:36 PM PDT, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:In general, I don't think that any amount of *passive* observation will be convincing. Science is only believable when *independent* experiments are supplied with *independent* random streams of bits; i.e., if I am allowed to perform the experiment myself using my own source of random bits. ("Supply a wiggle in, and see what wiggles out") Of course, this raises the following possibility (sci-fi writers, listen up!): In the future, the NSA will be tasked as a monopoly providing all necessary random bits. It does this by producing quantum entangled pairs of particles, supplying the market with one of each pair, and keeping the other particle in labeled storage. If/when the NSA customer "measures" one of the "market" particles, the entangled particle will also assume the same state, so the customer will have his random bit, and the NSA will also be happy. At 02:31 PM 5/31/2017, Dan Asimov wrote:
You have to perform a random binary experiment in front of a crowd of people — so no fooling is allowed — in in such a way that everyone is convinced that the experiment was fair.
The people include some technical experts but many who are not.
What is the simplest / easiest / cheapest way to ensure that the crowd will be convinced that the experiment was fair (the two outcomes had an equal chance of occurring) ???
—Dan
P.S. I do not have ann answer to this, but maybe there is a "best" answer.