I think you’ll agree that in QM our current interpretations are, to put it mildly, incomplete. Many Theoretical physicists are of the opinion that it may be impossible for human beings to understand QM. The method I used to formulate Young’s Theorem was to look at various theories, some of which have stood the test of time, some of which have not, and look at how easy the observations involved in their formulation are, how much metaphysical baggage they carry, and whether they were obviated and see if there was any statistically significant connection. There is. Let me explain:
Looking at Boyle’s law for example, the observations on the effects of changes in volume and temperature on pressure can be made in any high school science class. They leave little to the imagination. There is no metaphysical baggage. Boyle’s Law stands, and always will.
String Theory on the other hand is based on ideas that are based almost entirely on metaphysics and as predicted by Young’s Theorem, String Theory, or to be more correct the String Hypothesis, is very weak indeed, basically pseudo science.
Looking at which theories stand the test of time, there is a definite statistical link between how resistant a theory is to being falsified and how much unobservable baggage is associated with it.
And yet, QM is real. We know it’s real, physically tested and subject to rigorous peer review. What metaphysical “baggage” may be derived from QM is irrelevant. We know it is real, just as real as Boyle’s Law, even if we know that our understanding of QM is incomplete (such as the known “paradox” found in relatavistic quantum mechanics).
On the other hand, if we go with Young’s “Theorem” then, if we were 19th century scientists, we would have avoided the inquiry into QM because we would presume - a priori and without proof - that it is not likely to exist given the difficulty of proving it. The same could be said for relativity. Thus, Young’s “Theorem” is not only unprovable, it’s bad science.
Good science makes no assumptions. You hypothesize, test, and compare the test results to the hypothesis. Rinse and repeat until you have answered your question. Interestingly, each answer usually leads to multiple more questions. The deeper you go into the fundamental nature of the Universe, the more difficult the questions become to answer - but that has
nothing to do with the probability of something existing.
The jury is still out on the properties of black holes as there are a number of conflicting models of them. We don’t have enough information on them to make any definitive statements on them. Young’s Theorem predicts this would be the case as black holes cannot be observed in any detail.
Young’s Theorem works. You’re just too fettered with an education in an outmoded and feeble discipline to see it.
No, it’s just cold hard logic based on scientific fact. Here is what you assert Young’s Theorem to be: “The probability of a phenomenon’s existence is directly proportional to how easy it is to observe.”
Let’s put this “Theorem” to the test.
Premise: The singularity of a black hole cannot be observed in any way, shape or form. This premise is based on observed fact.
Conclusion: The probability of observing the singularity of a black hole is zero; i.e, it is impossible to observe.
Applying Young’s “Theorem:” The probability of a singluarity’s existence is directly proportional to how easy it is to observe, with the probability of observation being zero percent (impossible).
However, while there is a directly proportional correlation, we do not know if there is a minimum probability. However, the theorem does not establish a minimum probability. Nevertheless, there is at least the implication of some kind of asymtotic approach to zero percent probability. As the ease of observation approaches impossible, it is reasonable to assume given direct proportionality and no caveats that the probability of existence approaches zero percent.
Therefore, if we apply Young’s “Theorem” to the singularity of a black hole we conclude that it either 1) does not exist or 2) has a probability of existence that is so low that we should simply dismiss its potential reality in the same way that we dismiss the “reality” of fairies.
However, both conclusions are clearly wrong in view of the fact that the singularity does exist, even if we cannot precisely define its nature. All that mass had to go “somewhere,” and we can certainly observe the gravitational effects of the singularity.
On the other hand, let us assume a minimum probability. With no way to ascertain what the minimum probability is, we have no way of determining when we might apply Young’s Theorem to abandon an inquiry in terms of saving resources or believing in something’s potential existence. Given that the theory seems to imply that things that are difficult or impossible to observe are very unlikely to exist, it is again logical to abandon any inquiry into such matters.
The same rationale can be applied to the inner event horizon, which is simply the area past which you cannot “dip” inside the outer event horizon and come back out. Clearly, this area must exist, but Young’s “Theorem” would have us believe otherwise, or at least abaondon inquiry.
Given that Young’s “Theorem” produces paradox, or at a minimum closes down scientific inquiry that is clearly valid, we may safely and logically conclude that that the “Theorem” is either 1) wrong or 2) bad for scienctific inquiry. In either case, it is invalid and to be avoided.
