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 today,
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.
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.
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
It can't be say better, what physics ist NOT!
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!
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
formulations, are never physical theories. A physical theory is
not the mathematical one, which Honerkamp sees in the outside of the
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
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
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.
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!
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,
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
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:
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".
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
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.
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!