Many people , individual researchers have physics mathematical proofs with out experemental proof

but they give a logical expplenation of physics phenomena .
why that works do not be accepted for doctorate ?
I believe that it's impossible to have physics proof with sheet and pencil .The only thing that

you could have is a physics mathematical proof .

In open journals you can find individual researces also indipendent researces of professors and

doctors and in great journals you can find opinions of nobelists and great scientists .But none

of these reseaces will not be doctorate project .All we know is that doctorates are the unit of

researce production of any laboratory .

What makes the different ?
The research of doctorate must agree with the basic model of specific science area.The principles

of the model .
If a research does not agree it is a alternative view waiting the colapse of model or the

modification of model .
Publishing is not science , were the answer of my paper deliver of first time .
You can have doctorate with mass plank ? I think , no .
The majority of scientists believe in mass plank , but mass plank does not exist in experements

.So does not exist mass plank in doctorates as main research procceding .You can have doctorate

as a history presenation of belives of scientists .

We must remember what Hwaking said about his cosmology theory with mass plank and his

doctorate.That were diferent things .
My opinion is that a cosmology theory is a scientific fantaticism and physics mathematical proof

is the logic explanation of that dreem .
The physics mathematical proof makes theorists enthusiatic for publication ,it is the cause that

scientists believe in there theory

How many are we ?
I think there are in unified theory 10.000 scientists , nobelists , professors , teachers and

hobbists the last 100 years with physics mathematical proof .

Ten thousent physics mathematical proofs idicate how difficult is to
have an experiment in present society .All believe that the energy
level of unified field is the reseant of defeates .

Mass plank comes of quantum mechanics throught a logic proof , string
theory comes of mathematical proofs and there are metrical proofs(
like mine ) in deferent areas of physics , particles , quantum
gravity , cosmology .None have any experiment to proove an hypothesis
of there theory .
The problem is in production forces of our society .Our present
society is too wikness to solve the problem .

It makes scycologial pain to any scientist to have a proof without
experemental touching .You believe but you can not have it in your
hands .It is like platonic love .That creates neurves between
scientists and a dogmatic war .Sometimes the battle seems to be
religent war and canibalism .

Ten thousents proofs are less than the number of professors in
physics , but they are borring to read that proofs out of profession .
So I believe that we need a more political procceding .We need a
project of united nations to make a system with doctorates that they
will put any proof in a category ( logic , mathematical , metrical )
also in level ( number of links with laws and phenomena ) and in an
area of physics ( particles , astrophysics , ....)

This is a political proceeding , a management like in any production
area .It is the same way that politicients try to find what people
believes and what is in presence the people behavor .Where people is
moving might be the area where the solvation exist .
I think this project will be a pilot project of any scientific
area

Random babble. Vote move to Cesspool.

seconded.

I will, however, reply to the OP.

I think this is a rant against theoretical science.

This is a first pass, and I can tell you now how to attack this post---you should start by thinking about how I define "math" below.

The correct statement is that the world, as we know it, seems to have a description in terms of "math", however ill-defined that word may be. So, I can write down some function for a physical, called a Lagrangian, and I can derive from that Lagrangian a set of equations, called equations of motion, which are obeyed by that physical system, insofar as our ability to test them. This works classically for a pendulum, for example. This even works quantum mechanically, for electron-photon scattering.

First, I have to define what I mean by "math". For this, I will take "math" to be a set of axioms, self-consistent, and consistent with the rules of logic, up to perhaps Goedel's theorem (which I don't fully understand).

The goal of physics is to predict how nature behaves, given the assumption that nature is predictable. Given that math provides us with a set of axioms by which Nature seems to abide, it seems natural then to use math to describe Nature.

Then we have two cases. Either Nature's fundamental description is in terms of math that we either know or don't know, or Nature does not obey any set of axioms which we can set down and call math.

The first case subsumes the goal of theoretical physics. Physicists aim to calculate something that hasn't been measured, and make a prediction for what we should find once we measure it. "Measure" here can mean a measurement that WILL be made, or a measurement that can only be made in principle. In this case, your contention is wrong by my assumption.

The only case which you possibly have a chance of arguing is if Nature doesn't have follow a set of axioms which can be called "math". In this case, however, it should be clear that we have no hope of understanding Nature at its most fundamental levels. If Nature obeys some other logical axioms that those which we can invent or comprehend, then there is no hope for theoretical science, and we have to reduce ourselves to memorizing the results on an experiment by experiment basis. This, of course, is the end of physics.

It logically follows, I should add, that if our theories have done a good job of predicting how nature behaves in the past, it seems a reasonable starting point to extrapolate them beyond their tested applicability, and see what happens. Then, if we see nothing obviously wrong, and we can find predictions which are mathematically consistent, then we have a solid basis for a prediction. (This is, after all, how science works.)

If we happen to be wrong, then we have to go back and think about why we were wrong, and look for the places where we could have made a mistake. Once we understand the wrong answer, we then have to predict SOMETHING ELSE, and repeat the process.