<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The completeness of quantum theory for predicting measurement outcomes · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1208.4123/</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/1208.4123/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The completeness of quantum theory for predicting measurement outcomes — mentioned by akvadrako</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16256696</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1208.4123:16256696</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:39:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There is lots of mathematical evidence that every quantum state maps 1-to-1 on a physical state¹, or at least be uniquely determined by the physical state². The main assumption both make is that there is some physical state. So it doesn&amp;#x27;t really matter if it&amp;#x27;s a map or not - it tells you something about the territory. [1] The completeness of quantum theory for predicting measurement outcomes, https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4123 [2] On the reality of the quantum state, https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1208.4123/"&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>
