<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Asking photons where have they been · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1304.7469/</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/1304.7469/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Asking photons where have they been — mentioned by TheOtherHobbes</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12378000</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1304.7469:12378000</guid><pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:15:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s been proven fairly comprehensively that particles don&amp;#x27;t really exist in QFT in any useful sense. See e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7469.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/massive-neutrino-expe... Particles may be a useful abstraction, but they&amp;#x27;re also a very misleading one. It looks a lot as if what really happens is best described by a Two State Vector/Transactional interpretation. Which is very weird, because those are both time symmetric. And that&amp;#x27;s not a feature you&amp;#x27;ll find in any particle-oriented theory.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1304.7469/"&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>
