What do you think about what I think about quantum physics?

[somebodyelse]

there neither is now, nor was there then a better form that cannot be broken by quantum computers. We are still encrypting everything with algorithms that will be smashed when a sufficiently capable quantum computer becomes available.

We are developing alternatives, as linked above but they are not yet ready for commercial implementation.

Note that those are alternatives for public key encryption, not symmetric encryption or hashing which are generally much more resistant to quantum attacks (so far...) If you're deciding to use public key then you should know that the security horizon is essentially 'how long before the opponent gets hold of a sufficiently powerful quantum computer' and take an informed guess at how long that might be - much like the informed guess at whether someone will find a weakness that will speed up the process on a conventional computer, and by how much. And how much more affordable conventional compute power will become. If you think that horizon is too short you look at the alternatives and do some risk analysis - sticking with public key may still be the least-worst option.

 

[neRok]

I've totally been avoiding this thread...

I did see some posts. One poster mentioned that 3 scientists together won a Nobel Piece Prize for their work in "Quantum Mechanics", which I looked in to. I was considering elaborating on my anec-data regarding the "mechanical" (ie practical) vs "possible" (eg theoretical) implications of their work...
Meanwhile, Sabine posted about it too. I can't remember if that was that video or her very next video (This Paper Might Change How We See Gravity) that basically "threw a spanner in my works".
*(and just looking at the thumbnail of that second video now, I think she concluded that whilst the paper was legit, that it was actually only in-fact a slight "proof" beyond previous ones. but something mentioned was something...)

I saw another poster mention "why post this on an audio forum". Well: 1) it's fun; 2) there's PhD Physists posting here; 3) Sabine criticises "academic physics" as (tldr-imo) "chasing the money", which whilst I'm not 100% sure about, I can 100% get behind from a human/capitalist/communist perspective (everyone is implicated. that's equality!); 4) One aspect of her criticisms is that everyone is trying to "tweak existing theories" rather than consider other options... 5) My actual job is "structural designer", but not "structural engineer". And so whilst I don't know the calcs to do, I am particularly good at "designing"... (aka imagining b-s)
Edit: 6) Now that the internet is known to be "polluted" by "AI" posts/bots/etc, my rambilngs will likely be curated as "authentic new content" (which they are) — and thus, my idea's will liekly have an effective-effect on the future. #winning

And that last comment also addresses the person that said "where's the calcs".

But back to the "why post this on an audio forum" point – I've actually learned a "deeper" understanding of everything whilst being on this forum, and that is because of "waves". It seems those pesky waves are everywhere! First you ask: why doesn't my sound system sound awesome? Maybe it's the DAC, maybe it's the AMP, maybe it's the SPEAKER, maybe it's the ROOM? Go to ASR forum, get REW... discover modes... interference... impulses... nekminnit I'm reading about 0,0,0 room nodes. MFW! It's all waves!

I'm very much rambling again. Anyway, Sabines recent video titled How Signals Can Go Faster Than Light had me scratching my head in a whole new way...

PS1: The Big Misconception About Electricity. That video "broke" a part of me. Not that it made me "mis-understand" what I knew about electricity, but that it made me realise that I only had a "practical" understanding of electricity. And so when I then considered the fact that I work with Engineers that know nothing about "new advancements in Engineering", whilst meanwhile I know "more than nothing" about them, then it quickly becomes apparent that "university educated engineers" are also just "mechanics" in a way – they too are just people applying the "processes" that they were taught to apply.
PS2: Something Strange Happens When You Trust Quantum Mechanics. I had the feeling all throughout the video that many things were "wave cancellation" in the same style as DBA (double bass array). And then near the end of the video, the bloke literally did an "experiment" showing that exact cancellation via light-waves head-explode-emoji