<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1401.0535/</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/1401.0535/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28922281</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1401.0535:28922281</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:11:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This is a surprisingly good write-up. The Skordis &amp;amp; Zlosnik paper can be found at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00082 I&amp;#x27;ll start with some comments for non-experts, and then escalate about ten paragraphs further down. tl;dr: there are lots of things that hang on General Relativity being correct practically everywhere in our universe, the only &amp;quot;hiding places&amp;quot; that don&amp;#x27;t break astrophysical objects (or even laboratory experiments, including in robotic laboratories we have sent to other places in our solar system) is very close to the big bang, deep inside black holes, and in large masses brought…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1401.0535/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.SR</category></item><item><title>A millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18507898</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1401.0535:18507898</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 04:39:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;As an aside to my earlier direct reply, these are foundations-of-physics issues. Most working physicists don&amp;#x27;t really care what are in the foundations, to the great annoyance of many philosophers. (Tim Maudlin comes instantly to mind.) But annoyed philosophers don&amp;#x27;t change the results from numerical relativity. In https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0202079v1 Rovelli wrote something striking that I&amp;#x27;m glad this discussion took me to: &amp;quot;The very foundation of general covariant physics is the idea that the notion of a simultaneity surface all over the universe is devoid of physical meaning. Seems to me…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1401.0535/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.SR</category></item></channel></rss>
