First of all, most people do not understand quantum physics, and all of it's implications; myself included.

This is a great point to make a philosophical observation:

What does it mean to when someone says "I understand this"?

To most people it means that there is no mystery to it for them. When a scientist says he understands something it can mean one or two things (1) there is no mystery to it for them or (2) he knows the laws, theory and how to do the math and the rest is cake.

It is in respect to (1) that Richard Feynman said, in

**The Feynman Lectures on Physics**, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it.

I

*highly* recommend reading the context in which that was taken from at

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Quantum Theory, and it is still a theory, as it has not as yet been proven, ...

This is a common misunderstanding. All too often you'll hear people say "It's just a theory" as if that was a valid argument. In fact that statement is famous for being quite invalid.

I highly recommend reading the following article from

**Scientific American** at

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
I also recommend reading the definition of

**Scientific Theory**
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
It's also a common misconception that science is about proving things when in fact its not. No scientific theory can be proven. Please watch the following video on the subject by Alan Guth

http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_04.mp4
..., is based on Bohr's math done in the late 19th century. So, the entire construct is, or was, purely mathematical and/or logical in physics terms.

That's quite incorrect. Bohr didn't have a theory of quantum mechanics, at least not in the literal sense. The called his model of the atom a quantum theory. However he didn't have a real quantum theory in the sense that such a theory described all particle dynamics. And all laws of physics are described in mathematical terms because math is the language of physics. Here you make it sound as the math and logical description does not "really" tell us what can be known of nature on the atomic and subatomic level, which is far from true.

But it does pass as a principal to a certain degree, since every time it has been tested, physically and mathematically, it passes.

To a "certain degree"? In fact it passes to the level which we have the ability to measure it.

But in one sense you're correct, in that this is related to the logic of science is inductive rather than deductive.

When Bohr did his studies, he determined (per the example in the video) that the two photons that were created would have a certain amount of energy (the spin) ...

I think that you're confused here. Energy and spin are

*not* the same thing. Energy is a scalar quantity whereas spin is a vector quantity. By the way, the energy of a photon is always taken as positive.

Note: The absolute value of the energy of a closed system is defined only as being constant. It can have any real value. What corresponds to physical reality is that the value is constant. In fact when one calculates the total energy of a particle next to an infinite line of mass (i.e. the sum of the gravitational potential energy and the kinetic energy) one must include that additive constant which in most all other cases one can set to zero. In this case it can't be done.

Keep in mind, at the time of his studies, molecules had not been proven to exist, let alone atoms.

Einstein’s 1905 paper on Brownian Motion confirmed the atomic theory of matter and it was that paper which is taken as the argument after which there was no longer any serious doubt of the existence of atoms. It's been said that

"This is viewed by many as the first proof that atoms actually exist." but I hate to use the term "proof".

Special relativity also came later, derived from his work.

Where did you get that impression from? Einstein is credited with creating relativity in his 1905 paper entitled

**On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies** which had nothing to do with anything Bohr ever did up to that point. The paper is online here:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Notice that nowhere in that paper is Bohr or anything he did mentioned used or referenced in that paper. I doubt Einstein even heard of Bohr at that time. The first mention I can find of Bohr's work by Einstein was in 1913, i.e. 8 years after the publication of special relativity.

See page 373 at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=OAsQ_hFjhrAC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=Einstein+and+the+Quantum:+Fifty+Years+of+Struggle+by+John++Stachel&source=bl&ots=d_6QCqya-E&sig=ivL-eEB6YpX0K1LdOn503hZTLek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJzfzHlI_VAhUDez4KHQL9CkQQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=Einstein and the Quantum: Fifty Years of Struggle by John Stachel&f=false
Bohr also believed, later, that we could never prove quantum theory ..

May I also ask where you got this impression from? Again, physicists know that they can't prove any theory and Bohr was a first rate physicist.

Consider, Einstein never believed in this entanglement, s..

Since when? Also, what do you mean by "never believed"?

Some of these things i either accept or reject and move on.

Why do you think that's a good idea?