<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Overview of Bohmian Mechanics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1206.1084/</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/1206.1084/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Overview of Bohmian Mechanics — mentioned by naasking</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17681020</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1206.1084:17681020</guid><pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2018 16:11:12 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; This is exactly what I was talking about, you consider that your atom has energy levels and then you plug in classical EM fields, sometimes that&amp;#x27;s good enough to get somewhere. But it can never be classical because there&amp;#x27;s no way to have energy levels in a classical atom. And this is what I&amp;#x27;m talking about: this conversation is becoming an ever-shrinking pocket of you claiming, &amp;quot;well that&amp;#x27;s not classical&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;that can&amp;#x27;t be done in a classical theory&amp;quot;, and me demonstrating that it has been done, toy theory or not. I have no problem with discrete theories, I have a problem with people…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1206.1084/"&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>
