Bell's theorem is just that, a theorem, not a fact. A theorem simplpy means something that is proposed on the basis of previously agreed upon rules or axiomatic assumptions, not necessarily on facts.
The problem with experiments is that some of them are not real. For example, an optical flat can be certified only to the degree limited by the interferometric device used and the ability to control all other parameters. Our measurements are as good as the precision (and errors) of our instruments. If we can't measure something then it is an approximation, not a fact.
the wave/particle duality of light, photons
The wave particle issue has to do with our inadequate mathematical models. Just as a quadratic equation can have two distinct solutions but never one. The problem is in our math, which is inadequate to provide answers as to the nature of a "particle' of radiant energy.
Ancient math was unable to do what calculus was bale to achieve, but ti took Leibniz and Newton to discover that mathematical model.
Quantum theory is still theory, not a fact. Even is something is mathematically provable does not mean that it reflects or describes the real world. Ptolemaic navigational systems comes to mind.
Let's set your sophism aside for a moment. Facts must be provable or else they are not facts. They are baseless claims.
Without reality to corroborate it, math is just numerical fictional prose. Math does not make reality "real" but rather the observed reality makes math real.
Experiments in the real world are used to test it. THAT was the point.
Our measurements are as good as the precision (and errors) of our instruments
Another "duh." Doesn't change the point of the accuracy of math - given the precision of the measurement of quantity.
The wave particle issue has to do with our inadequate mathematical models.
What? Are you now re-writing the science of light? Your "theory" here is novel.Quantum theory is still theory, not a fact
A theory that works in a multitude of devices you use every day.
that it reflects or describes the real world.
It works precisely because it reflects the real world. Remember, I'm the one who posted the initial point about models.
Facts must be provable or else they are not facts.
I AM talking about proof. Are you off trying to deny mathematical proof now? Math does not make reality "real" but rather the observed reality makes math real.
Uh, without the real world, there's no math. Ok. You do believe 2+2=4, right?
Forget quantum, forget light, your argument is getting obtuse. The point is whether mathematic proof is proof of truth and facts.
If the Pythagorean theorem is proved mathematically, is it therefore proven “true” - a “fact”? If it is mathematically proven false, is it therefore “false”. If it is mathematically proven unprovable, is it therefore a fact that it is “unprovable.”