The capabilities of quantum computing have already been proven by factoring primes. Check out this article showing the highest number factored with a quantum computer and shor's algorithm. Shor's algorithm can be used to break RSA encryption, the only thing we are lacking is a quantum computer with 256+ bits.
So will everything break when quantum computers have more bits and are widely accessible? There are already solutions proposed that make blockchains and other technologies relying on encryption "quantum-proof" so I think we will be fine.
While it is possible that there is a back-door is SHA, I find it very unlikely. The algorithm is open source and reviewed by academic communities who have looked for back-doors. Those "strange parameters" are probably large primes that the algorithm needs to simulate randomness in a deterministic way. Check out this video if you want to learn more about how SHA works.
And while I agree that it is easy to be skeptical of quantum mechanics while living in the macro world, there is enough science to convince me of the quantum nature of our reality. So why aren't we, as macro objects, effected by quantum mechanics? I heard it explained like this. Quantum objects are flying around in superposition until they are measured. A measurement could be a collision with a photon or other particle. The reason that macro objects are not subjected to the uncertainty of the quantum world is that we are constantly being measured. Think about how many photons are bouncing off you at this instant then thank the photons for your certainty.
Thoughts?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I have read the article that you linked and it only proves to me that they try to fool us. The Shor's algorithms that they have run relied on knowing the outcome in advance. That doesn't prove much about quantum computing at all, does it? The new algorithm that they mention looks better, and I would have to read up on it before I can comment on it.
I know there is a lot of "quantum evidence", but it can not convince me. If a theory comes with unsolvable paradoxes, then for me that is proof that this theory is wrong. Period. They need to retrace their steps and find where they diverged from reality. And I believe there are a few such moments in historical science.
The fact that a theory predicts correct results does not mean that the theory itself is correct. An example of that you will find in Bohr's model of the atom, with electrons flying around a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons. It is a beautiful model and it explains a lot, but it is not a correct model. And everyone in the science community is aware of that.
The same goes for QM. It is probably the best that we have, but it can not possibly be correct.
On SHA256: I know what those parameters are for, but I find it more than likely that they are chosen in such a way that they provide a back door. As the algorithm is quite complex (in tossing around the bits) I can understand that finding this back door for an outsider will be extremely difficult.