<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Geometric Hamilton-Jacobi Theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math-ph_0604063/</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/math-ph_0604063/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Geometric Hamilton-Jacobi Theory — mentioned by cygx</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3252044</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:math-ph_0604063:3252044</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:42:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I didn&amp;#x27;t read the paper yet and it really might contain some valuable insights into the nature of quantum mechanics (I&amp;#x27;ll take a look at it later today), but I find this debate about whether the wave-function is a real object or not hilarious: It completely fails to take into account that the wave function is not defined on space-time, but rather on an abstract configuration space - it confuses the mathematical model with physical reality. The general problem with QM is that it&amp;#x27;s an algebraic and not a geometric theory, ie you know the rules, but have no real concept about what they mean.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math-ph_0604063/"&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>
