<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0308039/</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_0308039/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty — mentioned by naasking</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29633377</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0308039:29633377</guid><pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 03:12:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The wavefunction is certainly physically meaningful in the sense that you can&amp;#x27;t predict experimental results without computing its behaviour (or something equivalent to it). The wavefunction in Bohmian mechanics is just as interesting and unreal as the Hamiltonian in classical statistical mechanics. Which is to say that, sure, you still need something like it to calculate outcomes and what you observe will conform to it, but that doesn&amp;#x27;t make it real. The particles are real here, and they just follow a law of motion described by the wave function. &amp;gt; given that elementary particles are not…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0308039/"&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>Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20494056</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0308039:20494056</guid><pubDate>Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:25:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;What EPR and Bell&amp;#x27;s arguments showed is that if you have definite results of experiments at the space-time locations where/when we think the results happened, then there has to be something non-local going on and a foliation is the simplest way to orchestrate that. So either give up a certain kind of definiteness (MW) or introduce a foliation (BM). A foliation is somewhat unpleasant, but there are ways to tease them out of the existing structures of relativity + wave function [0]. As for determinism, that is not the main point for many proponents of BM. Rather, it was about having a clear…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0308039/"&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>
