<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Discrete Spacetime and Relativistic Quantum Particles · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1312.2852/</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/1312.2852/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Discrete Spacetime and Relativistic Quantum Particles — mentioned by n4r9</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19198318</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1312.2852:19198318</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:00:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Point taken! I agree that terminology is especially fickle in physics, and it can be very confusing. Words need to be co-opted in order to discuss the objects of a new theory, and often they are simply chosen by rough analogy. The &amp;quot;mass&amp;quot; of Newton&amp;#x27;s spacetime is not the &amp;quot;mass&amp;quot; of Einstein&amp;#x27;s relativity. The &amp;quot;spin&amp;quot; of an electron is not the same as the spin of a car&amp;#x27;s wheel. John Stewart Bell has a nice quotation about this when discussing the use of the word &amp;quot;measurement&amp;quot; in quantum theory: &amp;gt; Take for example the “strangeness”, “charm”, and “beauty” of elementary particle physics. No one is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1312.2852/"&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>
