<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Real-space entanglement in the Cosmic Microwave Background · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2106.15100/</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/2106.15100/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Real-space entanglement in the Cosmic Microwave Background — mentioned by mitthrowaway2</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40661713</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2106.15100:40661713</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:03:46 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It depends on what you consider the system. It certainly shouldn&amp;#x27;t! If wavefunction collapse happens for a photodiode but not for a mirror, that means that there should be some objective law of nature that says &amp;quot;if you arrange silicon atoms in a flat, polished plane, the wavefunction does not collapse, but if you dope them with phosphorus and nitrogen, and apply an electric field, it does collapse&amp;quot;. Whether the wavefunction collapses or not shouldn&amp;#x27;t depend on what we consider the system to be. &amp;gt; in a discernible way. This is passing the buck. What makes a change discernible? You know…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2106.15100/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item></channel></rss>
