I like Pablo's answer but I want to look at this from a slightly different point of view.
Let's look at the original text, in English (from In Pursuit of the Unknown by Ian Stewart):
He [Planck] used experimental observations of how energy depended on frequency, and fitted a mathematical formula to the data. His formula, derived early in 1900, did not initially have any physical basis.
The translator appears to have mistaken basis for bases, which is the plural of basis. The negative statement goes with the singular noun. An affirmative statement, on the other hand, can use either the singular and plural, as the situation calls for.
An example of the plural, correctly used (taken from Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations, by Jeffrey Poland):
This chapter is devoted to the identification of the physical bases of the physicalist system. | Este capítulo trata sobre la identificación de las bases físicas del sistema fisicalista. [my own translation]
Let's get back to Stewart's sentence. What Stewart is saying is that when Planck wrote down a formula to model his "experimental observations of how energy depends on frequency," his formula was purely empirical. He was just fitting the data -- as opposed to starting from first principles. In other words, there was no physical basis for the formula he wrote down; he wasn't describing reality as he saw it. This is like when an art historian compares a an abstract painting, A, with a still life, B, by saying that the painting A wasn't based on a concrete physical object. Thus, we are talking about a singular entity. We're saying that the formula, and the painting, are not based on that singular entity.
When ningún/ninguno/ninguna modifies a singular noun, it has to be singular, by the principle of number agreement.