<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Are All Particles Identical? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0405039/</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_0405039/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Are All Particles Identical? — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43384920</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0405039:43384920</guid><pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 03:29:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Bohmian mechanics is based on the idea that we perceive stuff to be in a certain position in a single reality because there is a correspondence to stuff being actually there. That&amp;#x27;s nice. If the particles are surfing a wave and not impacting it, so be it. It is also rather nice to think of the particles as just being points in space with nothing else associated with them; an electron is just an electron because the portion of the wave function that is relevant and guiding it is the electron portion; see a paper from 2004 entitled &amp;quot;Are all particles identical?&amp;quot; [1] (I am a coauthor on that).…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0405039/"&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>Are All Particles Identical? — mentioned by jostylr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20502508</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0405039:20502508</guid><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:30:50 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;points on the screen&amp;quot; is the only reason we have to believe in particles There are also the cloud chamber paths. But more generally, I would say most people&amp;#x27;s experiences correspond closer to stuff having well-defined localization which is more in the ballpark of particles than waves. Waves spread. Also, this is not a matter of what is true, but rather what is plausible. A natural conclusion which works would be a good candidate to continue to pursue. My opposition to the paper cited was simply that it wants to argue that everything is a wave, something which seems to be an assumption not…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0405039/"&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>
