<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Particle Creation at a Point Source by Means of Interior-Boundary Conditions · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1703.04476/</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/1703.04476/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Particle Creation at a Point Source by Means of Interior-Boundary Conditions — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17438028</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1703.04476:17438028</guid><pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2018 22:28:51 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The standard stuff of the Copenhagen interpretation is derivable from Bohmian mechanics, to the extent that the collapse in Copenhagen is sufficiently well-specified. This obviously prevents finding experimental disagreements. One thing that is somewhat problematic from an orthodox perspective is that of arrival times since, in some sense, nothing is arriving. Time is problematic, in general, in standard QM. One recent paper that explores Bohmian mechanical predictions concerning arrival times is https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07141 It explains how it is not clear in the standard formulation what…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1703.04476/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math-ph</category></item><item><title>Particle Creation at a Point Source by Means of Interior-Boundary Conditions — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14611203</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1703.04476:14611203</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:23:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I remember Dr. Zeillberger from my graduate days at Rutgers. He clearly had a lot of interesting stuff to say which he packages in sensational and emotional form. I found it off-putting then as well as now. But to be charitable, I think it comes from a place of pushing with tremendous force a pendulum of thought back from the axiomatic nature towards more exploratory and relevant mathematics. It reminds me of Howard Zinn&amp;#x27;s intro to A People&amp;#x27;s History of the US in which he says that he purposefully did not water down his arguments to be more neutral because of the overwhelming nature of the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1703.04476/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
