<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Fermionic Wave Functions on Unordered Configurations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1403.3705/</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/1403.3705/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Fermionic Wave Functions on Unordered Configurations — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20494056</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1403.3705:20494056</guid><pubDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:25:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;What EPR and Bell&amp;#x27;s arguments showed is that if you have definite results of experiments at the space-time locations where/when we think the results happened, then there has to be something non-local going on and a foliation is the simplest way to orchestrate that. So either give up a certain kind of definiteness (MW) or introduce a foliation (BM). A foliation is somewhat unpleasant, but there are ways to tease them out of the existing structures of relativity + wave function [0]. As for determinism, that is not the main point for many proponents of BM. Rather, it was about having a clear…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1403.3705/"&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>
