<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0103079/</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/quant-ph_0103079/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by scythe</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11717361</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0103079:11717361</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 20:58:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Many-worlds isn&amp;#x27;t mathematically simple if you demand world-splitting occurs locally. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079 Interpreting quantum mechanics is often like this: you can preserve locality or convenience, but usually not both. This is why I prefer the minimalist relational interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics However, I don&amp;#x27;t recommend this as a preferred interpretation because it does not motivate discoveries (the other interpretations all fail here too). So far, none of the interpretations has led to a new physical theory, and in particular…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0103079/"&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>
