<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Arrival Time Distributions of Spin-1/2 Particles · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1802.07141/</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/1802.07141/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Arrival Time Distributions of Spin-1/2 Particles — mentioned by griffzhowl</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45793813</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1802.07141:45793813</guid><pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2025 22:01:32 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, I had a look at Maudlin&amp;#x27;s book. It seems the distinction between signaling and causation is that there might be some kind of nonlocal causation that we can&amp;#x27;t control and so can&amp;#x27;t use to send a signal. Local causation is defined as in Bell&amp;#x27;s Theory of Local Beables, as the probability distribution for values at spacelike separated regions only being correlated with respect to the overlaps in their past lightcones. Or to put it the other way around, there&amp;#x27;s nonlocal causation if the probability distribution of values in one region depends on values in a spacelike separated region.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1802.07141/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item><item><title>Arrival Time Distributions of Spin-1/2 Particles — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17438028</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1802.07141:17438028</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/1802.07141/"&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>
