The proof is in the pudding! The contemporary Mathematical Establishment inherited the word proof from the Ancient Greeks. A Greek geometer would propose a set of axioms and through inductive or deductive reasoning arrive at an unchallengeable conclusion. The inference followed from the premises. The Greeks as well as their successors referred to these conclusions as 'truths', meaning that they were truthful statements. For instance, if we have 1 apple here and 2 apples there, we can say unequivocally that there are a total of 3 apples. Likewise, if we divide the circumference of any circle by its diameter, we always end up with the ratio π (3.14). It is this context of the magical words 'proof' and 'truth' that the Greeks bequeathed to the mathematicians of today. What neither the Greeks nor their successors ever discovered is that 1 + 2 = 3 is so BY DEFINITION. The number 3 is defined as and means 1 + 1 + 1 or 1 + 2. The word number is a noun in ordinary speech. It is a VERB for the purposes of Science and Physics. Number means 'to count'. You can stop at 1 or count all three apples. And whether you add or subtract, divide or conquer, whatever result you obtain simply means 1, 2, 3,... until you reach the last number. If the third apple has been bitten or has a worm in it, this does not convert it into half an apple. We still have three units. We still count three objects. Fractions and decimals do not alter the meaning of the word 'number'. Neither do negative, irrational, or complex numbers. These are all nothing but categories of numbers that the mathematicians invented and which are of relevance only to the specifics of their guild. More fundamentally, there are no theories in all of Mathematics! A theory is an explanation. Mathematics doesn't explain. It has no power or authority to explain. It wasn't designed to explain mechanisms and causes. Mathematics can only describe. Therefore, the mathematicians may use the words 'proof' and 'truth' to refer to their quantitative descriptions. They have no business extrapolating those words to qualitative theories. And this is exactly what the mathematicians who took over the reigns of 'science' in the 17th Century have done. They talk about 'proving theories'. They insinuate that their physical interpretations have been proven when they are actually talking about equations and measurements. Of course, a mathematician instantly follows this up with a disclaimer. Theories are never proven. New ones come along, they say, and shove existing ones aside or modify them. This only muddles the issue further. Are the mathematicians referring to more accurate measurements or to novel physical interpretations? You find the answer when you try to publish an article that questions the rationality of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics... The editors of 'respectable' journals will throw it in the garbage can. They won't even read it after glancing at the first lines of the abstract. You may wonder, "Why is that so?" Why not give other theories a chance to be heard by the public? The answer is that you are not allowed to attack these established theories from a qualitative perspective. Indeed, many mathematicians preempt you and concede that their explanations are irrational:
"There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
"Modern science is difficult and often counterintuitive…Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics… When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created… human cognition does not operate according to principles of common sense."
Leonard Susskind Professor of Mathemagix Stanford University, In Defense of Common Sense, The Edge (2005)
Therefore, you are not telling them anything new about the 'counter-intuitiveness' of their theories. They already know that their theories offend common sense. No. If you want to publish against Quantum or Relativity, you will only be allowed to propose an equation that somehow debunks existing ones. The mathematicians don't care about the physical interpretations. They dismiss those as 'philosophy' (i.e., opinion). Therefore, if the explanation is irrational, it doesn't make a dent in what Relativity and Quantum have been proposing for a hundred years. So we have a contradiction. Let's run through the steps again...
1. The words proof and truth can only be used in the context of quantitative descriptions. They cannot be used in the context of a qualitative explanation. A theory is a qualitative explanation. 2. The mathematicians claim that Quantum and Relativity have been 'proven'... which they stealthily phrase as "no experiment has yet debunked Quantum or Relativity" or as "all experiments so far confirm Quantum and Relativity." Are the mathematicians referring to the physical interpretation? Is this what the experiments confirmed? No. They are referring to the measurements. Their claim is that the measurements agree (or are made to fit) their equations. This is what they insinuate has been 'proven', not the theory (i.e., the qualitative explanation). 3. When you attempt to argue that the physical interpretation is irrational, many of them agree and dismiss your argument on the basis that you are doing 'philosophy'. You are in the wrong forum. You should attempt to publish in a journal that deals with the Philosophy of Science (which won't accept your manuscript either because you are offending Relativity and Quantum). There is a 'new rationality' in Philosophy according to people like Susskind that you must conform to. Irrationality is in. Rationality is out. "Who do you think you are that you think that you can explain the workings of our Universe rationally? God?" 4. Have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics been proven? The answer is that all experiments so far run by relativists and mechanics confirm their 'predictions'. None debunk them. The predictions are not the qualitative physical interpretations. We are not talking about whether spacetime is a physical object that can be warped or whether 0D point particles can collide. Those simplifications are there simply to illustrate complex mathematical concepts for the ignorant masses. The predictions are the measurements which agree with their equations. It is these which are declared to be proven truths until a better one (more accurate or precise one) comes later. 5. Therefore, you are never allowed to challenge the physical interpretations in any magazine or journal that has a chance of reaching the masses. You cannot show that the physical interpretations are irrational because:
a) they already know that b) the equations have been experimentally proven to be true. c) the explanations (the theories) that Quantum and Relativity propose are not important even if they are irrational
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed experimentally. They (the measurements and equations) are true. Explanations are nothing but 'philosophy' (i.e., opinions). There's no way to 'prove' invisible entities anyway, so who cares about the physical interpretation? You are wasting your time. You are attacking a strawman.
For 100% proof, buy beer with 50% alcohol The other issue concerning proof is who you 'proved' your theory to. Some people believe that space-time and Big Bang have been proven... tothemselves, of course... ...because others seem to have arrived at contrary truths. These folk believe that Godmade the Universe. They offer as evidence the first book of the Bible. They claim that this theory was proven to them. Who, then, has proven his theory?And to whom? Who can be said to possess the truth? We have to conclude that what each individual believes or believes has been proven to him is a personal matter and doesn't concern Science. Proof and truth are hallmarks of religion. In Science, we merely explain a mechanism objectively so that the crowd understands. Whether the juror believes the theory and votes for it and calls it the truth is of no concern to Science.