Gravage,
DaveC426913 is right. You seem fixated on the idea that things in nature can have "proof", and that it's the job of science to "prove" things. That's not what science does. Science's job is to model the natural world so that we can make accurate predictions about how things will behave under different conditions. To do that, scientists create imaginary mental pictures of all kinds of weird stuff. In physics, we have fields and particles and waves, not to mention more mathematical things like metrics and symmetry groups and differential equations of motion.
What comes out of those mental images and the maths that fleshes them out, are predictions: if we do
this in the "real world", then
that will happen. If we observe
this in the real world now, then tomorrow we expect to see
that.
In terms of science's ability to make predictions, it doesn't matter at all what kind of mental picture we use, as long as the predictions are accurate. Science doesn't
care whether electrons actually exist in the "real world", or whether spacetime
really curves. What it cares about is that if the electron model tells us we can wire a battery to a light bulb then the light will go on reliably, based on our design using that electron model. Or, if we point our telescope towards galaxy A, and galaxies B and C are in particular positions in between us and A, then we will see 3 images of galaxy A, as described by our model of curved spacetime. The success or failure of the model depends only on whether our "real world" observations match what the model predicts.
If we connect up that battery and the light
doesn't go on as expected (and we have done everything right according to what the model requires) then the model is faulty and must be replaced by something that works.
Now, if you don't
like the idea of electrons, or curved spacetime, then you're quite free to invent your own, different models to explain why that light bulb circuit works and why you see 3 images of galaxy A. For example, your model might say that little invisible pixies carry invisible parcels of darkness away from the bulb and hide them away in the battery, and that's why the bulb lights up. Your pixie model is just fine, as far as science is concerned,
as long as it explains all the different kinds of electrical circuits at least as well as the electron model does.
Science will never prove that electrons exist. But we can say with high confidence that, as far as we can tell from "real world" observations of many different kinds, the "real world" behaves
as if those imaginary electrons exist as described by the electron model. And that's all that science requires in order for us to find the electron model useful.
Again, because of limited perception, limited observations of limited pieces of reality/ealities, everything what you try to explain is simply wrong...
It can't be "simply wrong", because it all predicts "real world" results that we can directly observe.
You
might be able to show some other model(s) are more powerful than the ones we currently use, but you can't deny that our current models are incredibly useful and productive.
Besides, I have seen those experts for the brain what they told, we can never see the reality the way it is because of our vast limitations-and that is the key point in all of my posts.
If we can never see reality the way it is, then the best we can do is to make models to the extent of our abilities.
Sure we can make hypotheses and create incredible technologies, but hypotheses behind to explain the universe are simply useless...
Those two statements are incompatible with one another. If our "incredible technologies" are created using the very models ("hypotheses") that you claim are "simply useless", then what's going on? Are we just having an incredible streak of blind luck? Or what?
-when you are so much limited-and math does not solve anything if you cannot prove it in the first place-I mean really prove it, that you actually directly observe that it behaves, exactly the way mathematics describes it-and that was never the case, it is never the case now, and it never will never be the case in the future.
But the math we use
does help us to make accurate predictions using our models, and we constantly check those predictions against what we directly observe. If the predictions weren't accurate,
then we'd have to throw away the maths and start again.
I actually welcome this, but it doesn't change the facts-it's unprovable, again I do like hypotheses of all kinds, but none has the right to say this proven or this is disproven.
To emphasise: science does
not say that a statement like "this track in the bubble chamber was caused by an electron" is "proven". What it says is "this track in the bubble chamber is
consistent with what the model of an electron passing through the chamber would predict". The difference is a bit subtle, but I hope you're starting to understand by now.
This is where physicists and mathematicians cannot see the difference between mathematical pseudo-evidences and directly observational real world evidences and than they all lose their boundaries-and they are presenting as something mathematical that is actually proven, when it is not; not even the slightest-scientists should analyze and interpret exactly what direct observations of experiments actually prove...
Tell me what you think a track in bubble chamber "actually proves".
How do you propose to explain and
predict tracks in a bubble chamber without using some kind of model?
Why it would be, who says it's convenient-if you dig about something that you can never actually directly observe and experience, than everything you do with mathematics is a waste of time and money and it's misguiding people all over the world that scientists know that much, which in fact they do not know nothing, they only have unprovable matehamtical models to start with and that's about it-again the only good thing trials and error and with mathematical models are new technologies.
The particle model is
convenient since it allows us to make useful predictions about what will happen when we use a bubble chamber. And what happens in a bubble chamber is relevant to our understanding of physical phenomena of much wider applicability. This is why money and time are spent on bubble chambers* - they aren't there merely to keep some physicists amused.
As for scientists misguiding people, what do you want to replace (mathematical) scientific models with, exactly? What are you going to tell "people all over the world" about what goes on in a bubble chamber?
And yes, mathematical models are also trials and error since they are directly unprovable on all levels, in all forms, in all ways.
But you're wrong, again.
Mathematical models are "provable" insofar as they either make accurate predictions of real-world observations, or they do not. Not all models are created equal. There are good models and bad ones.
Again: what do you propose to replace mathematical models with? How will you make predictions about anything?
---
* Bubble chambers are outdated technology these days, since we have better ways to detect particles in collisions, so not much money is spent on them these days. At one time, though, they were the best available tool for the job.
