[NukeMan]

Aren't many mathematical principles (theorems and such) assumptions which lead to seemingly valid conclusions?

Yes, but theorems are different than physics. Mathematicians are epistemological zealots, and aren't supposed to use 'observations' to prove or disprove a theorem, but only the axioms and logical, non-contradictory application of identities afterwards. Unless, of course, you are Luitzen Brouwer and others like him, who don't accept the law of the excluded middle!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thankyou for the response concerning theorems and such and mathematicians and observation, but it doesn't satisfy my ignorant but curious mind. Isn't much, perhaps most, of physics, especially the quantum kind, mathematics. Perhaps later observation is necessary to verify postulations in accordance with the "scientific method" but the guts of it all is mathematics, right? Isn't the issue in question with this article not so much the observation but the math behind it?

If my questions seem like a kid constantly asking why, then I understand if you want to ignore them.