Math concerned on pure universal truths and physics concerned on inferential thruth so how can we could explain physics with math?
There is no intrinsic, fundamental difference between the theories produced in mathematics and the theories produced in physics.
There is in this respect no fundamental difference between mathematics, physics and what people say using spoken languages generally, such as English, Russian or Japanese. These are all formal expressions of some body of knowledge using some articulated language.
These bodies of knowledge are all understood as theories, whether in mathematics, in physics or in everyday life when we use language to articulate our conceptions of the world. Obviously, there are important differences, but these differences are not fundamental.
First, all languages are formal. You don't need anything to read English, for example, that you wouldn't also need to read mathematics. Essentially, this means that you can understand a text by reading it. This is in fact also true of a music score, or even body language, and not only the body language of humans but that of animals. And animals do it, too. Indeed, we "read" our environment in this way. We just look at it and we understand what is going on.
Most languages also use logic, and this is obviously true in Greek, Latin, English, French etc. In mathematics, physics and in everyday life using spoken langages, all theories are essentially logical constructs of the form "A implies B".
All languages are essentially used to make claims about the real world.
There are two important differences between mathematics and spoken languages, though.
First of all, obviously, modern physics relies on mathematics as a language to express theories formally, so what is true of mathematics will be true of physics.
So the first important difference is that mathematics is a symbolic language. This is crucial. The main point about using a symbolic language is to restrict the possible interpretations of any mathematical text to just one, something which isn't possible in ordinary languages, even for philosophical texts. I don't think I need to develop this point since it seems easily understood.
The second important difference between mathematics and ordinary languages is that mathematics is rigorous, and indeed extremely rigorous. This is made possible by the use of a symbolic notation. However, there is also a discipline required on the part of mathematicians themselves, with the 19th-century mathematician Weierstrass being one mathematician much more rigorous than others, and that therefore a symbolic notation is not enough in itself to ensure the rigour of mathematics.
Rigour to do what, though?
Ordinary languages were used initially only to communicate basic facts. However, the logical capacity of the brain progressively began to seep into spoken language and to manifest itself in the way that people expressed themselves. Most plausibly, a few isolated individuals, in different part of the world, must have started to use "arguments" as a means to convince others instead of using threats or cajoling. It worked and so people used it.
And this must have spread very fast to other individuals, most likely without anyone realising what they were doing. Apparently, only Aristotle noticed that there was a theory that needed to be articulated about human logic. Even before Aristotle, argument has become a major feature in mathematics, in science and in politics. One could say that modern politics, arguably born in Athens at the time, is the effort to make other people do what you want by using argument rather than brute force, or indeed war. The ubiquity of argument in Greece at the time made things much easier for Aristotle.
Thus, argument and therefore logic became, very early in human history, a key addition to the art and practice of most spoken languages. It should be said that logic became used in mathematics and science only because it was already a feature of ordinary languages. I don't even think early mathematicians thought they were using any specific type of mathematical reasoning. Rather, they used the same kind of argument, and therefore the same kind of logic, to prove mathematical results as they would use outside their mathematical work.
Thus, logic is a common feature to most languages. However, in the case of mathematics, rigour makes, obviously, a very important difference. However, the difference is not in the kind of logic, not initially at least. The difference is in the rigour, rigour made possible by the use of a symbolic notation and the discipline of mathematicians.
Thus, in both mathematics and physics, people limit themselves to statements that follow logically from accepted premises, something which doesn’t happen very often in ordinary life. And this is the consequence of being rigorous.
It should be also said that there is another key element to both mathematics and physics which makes a huge difference. Both mathematics and physics limit themselves to simple problems. This isn't specific to mathematics and physics either. Most professions should be seen as specialisations in problems that have been identified as sufficiently simple.
The reason for that is straightforward. Most people are unable to agree on any problem which is not simple and professions couldn't afford the luxury of the sort of endless discussions as seen in everyday life, and indeed in philosophy, metaphysics and religion. And politics.
There is of course a difference between mathematics and physics and it is also important. Physics is exactly the same as mathematics except for one crucial point. Physics limits itself to premises that are thought true because proven empirically, i.e. by observing nature. This explains why a mathematical theory may subsequently be successfully applied in physics.
However, the theoretical work is essentially the same, i.e. to produce logically valid theories. However, in the case of physics, these theories become ipso facto accepted as sound since their premises are accepted as true, at least until proven false by new observations.
The difference is in the fact that mathematical axioms are not necessarily thought true of the real world, whereas in physics they are. That is, they are thought true. At least until they are proven false. And, sometimes, mathematical axioms become thought true by scientists.
I guess this is a really important difference.
However, there is nothing done in mathematics or physics that is not done using spoken languages. The only real difference is the use of a symbolic notation, rigour and the simplicity of the problems considered.