In the original EPR article, it's written, "If, [...], we can predict [...]"

 

I'm not a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be written

 

"If, [...], we COULD predict [...]" ?? "can" in this case is like a grammatical error ?

 

Or sound that negative from the onset and the present version could be, at the limit right...since we still don't know if we can predict or not ??

 

Thanks in advance

Need more context than that.

In the original EPR article, it's written, "If, [...], we can predict [...]"

 

I'm not a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be written

 

"If, [...], we COULD predict [...]" ?? "can" in this case is like a grammatical error ?

 

Or sound that negative from the onset and the present version could be, at the limit right...since we still don't know if we can predict or not ??

 

Thanks in advance

 

Like swansont says it depends on context. If you are talking about something that is possible to predict (like solar eclipses) and just hasn't done it is can. If you are talking about something predicated on something else that is unpredictable (if A then B but you don't know what A is) it is could.

'Could' and 'Can' is basically the difference between definate and possible.

 

e.g."If (I drink 10 pints of beer) we can predict (I will be drunk)

"If (I drink 10 pints of beer) we could predict (I will fall over)

Or "menace-like" sentences : some teacher saying to a scholar "If you repeat this once more, I throw you out of the room" ?

Post the whole text. Without it, no conclusions can be drawn.

I don't have a text, it's just a sentance.

 

I could say : computer like reaction : I look out of the window, it's raining : "If it's raining, I take my coat"

 

But If I program a week, and I still don't know if a given coming day will be rainy, I have to say : "If a given day were rainy, I would have to take my coat".

Found it

 

If' date=' without in any way disturbing a

system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with

probability equal to unity) the value of a physical

quantity, then there exists an element of physical

reality corresponding to this physical quantity.[/quote']

 

That's fine. If we can predict (something), then (there is a ramification). There is a clause that modifies the condition under which the prediction is made.

 

The sentence is not saying If (something), then we can predict (something else).

Right, right. I've noticed this is a very protected area, so ancient and so prestigious.

Hindsight is not allowed, though it also seems it may be necessary for wave-fields with non-locality.

Edited April 4, 200916 yr by Norman Albers

I love you sometimes Norman... because in true philosophical spirit , you approch the principles. . So are you doing Tom, but in a different way... so cautiously.. not the once so confident man.. what's life been like lately in the lab? hehe...

 

The bloke points out a perfect notion , and as he stastes, he's not even English speaking (natively).. yet sees the ramifications of that little word. You are correct OP... it is not very accurate at all.. and perhaps not even viably correct.... lovely isn't it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just finished some things.. and we partied tonight.. a friend is leaving... so I am somewhat not non-excited, perhaps green or blue overexcited lewl :/ sowwy ^^

Do you sometimes think about the psychodynamical interpretation of EBR like experiment : you meet sdy and think about a long time after, or consider the couple as an entity (the covariance <AB> would be unseparable under certain criteria, which are more psychological ones, since blood laws (blood groups should be the same), are a reasonable cause of separation of a couple) ?

Edited April 4, 200916 yr by kleinwolf

I am not quite sure where the discussion is, but one of the most surprising things I ever read was in Dirac's 'little black book' on quantum theory. He said, we measure electrons always with the same charge and the same mass. We have no idea why these quantities are thus, but we accept these as eigenvalues.

Right..the formula used in Dirac's derivation is [math] E^2=m_0^2 c^4+p^2c^2 [/math]

it's rest mass m0.

 

Whereas for the charge, I suppose it has to do with a coupling to the electromagnetic field.

 

In fact I do not really understand relativistic formalism, need more time.