<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Timescales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.1589/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.1589/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Timescales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule — mentioned by naasking</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29633377</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1103.1589:29633377</guid><pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:12:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The wavefunction is certainly physically meaningful in the sense that you can&amp;#x27;t predict experimental results without computing its behaviour (or something equivalent to it). The wavefunction in Bohmian mechanics is just as interesting and unreal as the Hamiltonian in classical statistical mechanics. Which is to say that, sure, you still need something like it to calculate outcomes and what you observe will conform to it, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t make it real. The particles are real here, and they just follow a law of motion described by the wave function. &amp;gt; given that elementary particles are not…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.1589/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
