The final knowledge of modern physics
by Jan Peter Apel

The nature does not work therefore,
because there is mathematics!

The inevitable consequence:

So it must be explained without mathematics.

This is a law, namely the top of physics,
if physics want to be a science
and not just a playground for mathematics,
which it became since Einstein up tod
although mathematics only can describe and never explain.

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize in 1965, predict it in "The Character of Physics Law": "Why would an infinite amount of logic be needed to find out operations in a single tiny piece of space / time? That's why I hang somehow on the hypothesis that ultimately physics does not require mathematics, that at last the machinery will come to light and will be so easy like the rules of the superficially seemingly complex chess game".

Only when the science of physics can explain the mechanism of the world,
verbally and stringent by their cause-effect principles without mathematics, it is on target.
Therefore the nature has the corresponding explicit rules,
but they have never been searched and therefore not yet been found.

For exploring the world, firstly all their real things like material and radiation and secondly their mutual interactions have to be found.
The search for the things of the world continues up to now. Even the border of reality is exceeded. There are postulated particles, who can not exist for itself. So they are not far away from only mathematically postulated `terms', only imagination. 
But the search for the interactions of the things of nature has strayed from the beginning in mathematics. Therefore, today's science is still unable to say right or wrong. But exactly that is the job of science!

Why can today's physics not say wrong or right?
For this purpose, Josef Honerkamp in "Was können
wir wissen?", 2013, Germany: At this level (the verbal) laymen and not directly involved professional scientists can have a say. Of course they have a handicap: as the people in Platon's allegory of the cave, they see only the schemes of the theory, can never rely on the equations, can not judge how good they describe the phenomena and what in statements from experts about these mathematical `theories´ is already interpretation.

It can't be say better, what physics ist NOT!

Why? Laymen in a cave without knowledge of mathematics can see the mathematical theories only dimly as shadows from the outside of the cave. All interpretations out of this shadows, differs by physicists, would be only a non-binding statement, every time can be corrected by the mathematical `theories´. The result: it is impossible to say right or wrong in a verbal language. Even Honerkamp says: How can you refute a physicist? Answer: with another physicist!
But also Honerkamp does not know what a physical theory is: the verbal explanation of the mechanism of natural events by cause-effect-principle. The theories of relativity, like all just mathematical formulations, are never physical theories. A physical theory is not the mathematical one, which Honerkamp sees in the outside of the cave, in there the laities are. The opposite is true: Mathematicians sit with their lack of nature-understanding in Platon`s cave and see the nature only dimly.

Today's madness is, to explain the nature only mathematically, although the theoretical physics supply only an additional different type of description of the world, only an abstract picture of that, what it considered to explain before as after! These mathematical only `descriptions´ of the world led to additional mathematically defined terms, which supplanted the original terms for the real things of the nature.

These mathematical terms are e.g. energy and momentum, as the best known. However, these concepts are not physical, but mathematically created nodes for a net around the nature. The claim: only this can represent the nature rightly. Out of the above two nodes arise, by Newton's inertia principle with only original terms of the nature, another two new nodes: rotational momentum and rotational energy with only intellectual content. They are also detached from that, what physically remains behind both, the mass inertia. Inertia is the for mathematicians invisible basis of the existence of the four only spiritually terms.

The original physically terms of the nature can be seen for 'mathematic physicists' only as shadows through their mathematical glasses, which build a spiritual Platon's cave. Therefore, they see no more the origin nature, their rules, their mechanism, their truth and even not that, what physics basicly is. For physics as a natural sciencs it is valid explicitly:

 The mechanism of the nature must be found in the original nature in form of verbal theories,
without detour over mathematically abstract terms.
Only that way, physics will become a science, which can control itself.
With mathematical detours, no physical theory was still found.

Nature exploration is only successful, if the substantive nature will be thought through directly with their given and explicitly defined terms of its objects and variables and their specific interactions and not by virtual mathematically terms. Unfortunately, their mathematical grid fits so beautiful to nature. But only as a copy of the externals of nature!

The mathematical terms as the basis for the real nature meant, that the physical terms for the real things and their properties, which are used with a large share also in everyday language, for their particular application in physics as a science no longer have been defined, such as matter, mass, inertia, but also `theory','describe', explain' and above all 'relative' and 'absolute'. Today's theoretical physics ignore the physical terms completely, so it does not know, what it does with that `physics' in the real nature. Without explicit definitions of the necessary physical terms and sizes and characteristics, no verbal stringent physical statements, that is obeying the rules of nature, are possible. Honerkamp's use of `theory' for mathematical formulations is physically completely wrong, resulting from the lack of physical verbal definition for 'theory'.

First, mathematics prevented with mathematical terms unconsciously, but successful,
physical definitions of the required terms of the real nature, making verbal stringent explanations impossible.
Real-terms where free to use, as Honerkamp does with `theory ', and then math says,
because it is stringent, it is the language of physics: a reversal of front and back.
Nature can never be explained with physical stained terms with only mathematical contents!

His shock of what physics really is, described Rudolf Mössbauer in his foreword to Feynman's book:
"He (Feynman) as a theorist forbade me in these discussions, to my great surprise, to use mathematical formulations with the substantiation, that the mathematics could be made up when the solutions were once clear".

An example of a stringent verbal explanation of a natural phenomenon without the mathematical terms: Why increases the rotation of an ice art runner at a Pirouette? The physical explanation is: he brings the masses of his arms and legs after a rotary swing recording to a smaller radii, in which they are retaining their speeds as peripheral speeds, caused by its mass inertia. This is the exact verbal stringent physical theory with the rules of physics as an explanation from cause (uptake of movement) to effect (increasing rotation), by the natural principle of the inertia of matter (maintaining their movement speed) for the speed increase at a pirouette. Only such stringent and comprehensible theories from cause to effect, make the physics to a verifiable science.

Following this example, that a theory goes up to the basis of the nature
and not based on incomprehensible mathematical terms,
the theories of all the mechanism of nature have to be found
and afterwards, the mathematical formulas can be developed.
Physical theories basically comprise simple and understandable cause of action principles!
This page includes the very simple theories for the time dilation and gravity.

A feedback about the pirouette was, it would be a 'funny' explanation! Probably because it does not use the virtual terms such as rotational momentum or energy. This view shows how all physicists are thinking today: only by means of mathematical terms out of a mentally-mathematical Platonic cave, without regard to the true nature and with necessarily arising errors.
In today's teaching physics, nature is no longer included with their original terms in rem and factual.
Purely physical verbal stringent explanations of cause to effect for natural phenomena with their natural terms
are therefore no longer understood with todays only mathematical view, thinking and way of teaching. But:

The language of physics is according to the rules of physics
a stringent verbal language with explicitly defined physical terms,
directed from cause to effect.

All mathematical, whether by Einstein nor by modern individuals like Lisa Randall, must not be allowed to believe as long as it is not confirmed by concrete measurements in the nature. With "The calculations are right!", while the wrong results are concealed, the general theory of relativity is presented as the truth. But this is no confirmation of the nature, that it is really in that way. It is only the property of mathematics, being able to adapt with different formulations on an same appearance of a natural phenomenon, as it does for five different theories of gravitation. To this Richard Feynman: "Why correct physical laws (by which he means the five different gravitational formulas) can be expressed in so many different ways, I am still remained a mystery. I'm still not come behind it, how they manage to pass through different gates apparently simultaneously."  The different gates are in truth only one: the quadratic dependence of the gravitational action for removal. All mathematical formulations, containing a quadratic distance algorithm, lead to quantitatively "right" results. But only nature determines, what is real: verbal from cause to effect!