I Have a Dream!

I am dreaming of reformulating the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Why it is necessary?

It is necessary for better understanding the corresponding physics and for having better equations since currently the equations are such that their solutions need modifications. This fact reflects lack of physics understanding while constructing these equations.

Why it has not been done before?

In fact, many have tried, but none prevailed. And currently it is renormalizators (practitioners) who are teaching the subject, not theory developers, so they do everything to convince students to accept “bare particle” physics. In Classical Electrodynamics (CED) some teach that \dddot{\mathbf{r}} (the remainder after the mass renormalization) is a good radiation reaction term [1, 2] even though it leads to “false start” solutions; others, on the contrary, teach that \dddot{\mathbf{r}} is not applicable at “small times” and one must use \dot{\mathbf{F}}_{ext} instead [3], but up to now no mechanical equation was found to conserve the energy-momentum exactly and in a physical manner. We content ourselves with an approximate description. The Lorentz covariance and the Noether theorem did not help [4], [5]!

Similarly in QED – although the equation set is different from that of CED, the renormalization is still a crucial part of calculations. And in addition, soft mode contributions (absent in the first Born approximation) are obligatory for obtaining physically meaningful results. If one is obliged to sum up some of its contributions to all orders, it indicates a bad initial approximation used for the perturbation theory.

Many theory developers (founding fathers) were looking for better theory formulations. It happened to be an extremely difficult problem, mainly due to prejudices implicitly involved in theoretical constructions.

29463_60026833_600

Paul Dirac, a rare physicist who was not thinking of fame and money at all, never gave up. His motto – a theory must be mathematically and physically sensible [6], and for the sake of that we must search for better Hamiltonians, better formulations, better description than the current one, is my motto too.

Paul_DiracIf you have read my blogs (this one, http://fishers-in-the-snow.blogspot.fr/ , http://vladimir-anski.livejournal.com/) and articles, (more here) you may have an idea what I mean by reformulation. If you like, my program can roughly be understood as both fulfilling the counter-term subtractions exactly:

\mathcal{L}_{good}=\mathcal{L}+\mathcal{L}_{CT}\qquad (1)

and including some of this “good” (renormalized, to be exact) Lagrangian terms into a new initial approximation, i.e., figuratively speaking, I mean representing:

\mathcal{L}_{good}= \left[{\mathcal{L}}_0+\mathcal{L}_{soft}\right]+\left[\mathcal{L}_{good}-{\mathcal{L}}_0-\mathcal{L}_{soft}\right]=\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_0+\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{int}^R.\qquad (2)

The new “free” Lagrangian \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_0 will contain soft modes and physical constants by construction. Then the “interaction term” will be different too:

\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{int}^R =\mathcal{L}_{good}-\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_0-\mathcal{L}_{soft},\qquad (3)

so that no renormalization will be needed, and the soft diagram contributions will be taken into account automatically in the first Born approximation by construction, like in [9], [11]. The resulting perturbation theory series will resemble a usual Taylor series with no necessity to cheat and modify its terms. This is an unexplored possibility of the theory formulation and it is what I would like to do.

What I need?

In order to pursue my research, I need funds. I believe that we can achieve a better description if we abandon some prejudices and employ some physical reasoning instead of doing by a blind analogy. I have already outlined possible directions in my articles [7-11].  But currently I am working for a private company, fulfilling subcontract studies, and it takes all my time and efforts. This activity is far from my dream, though. I have to abandon it in order to concentrate myself on my own subject.  I’ve got to break free!

Academia does not support this “reformulation approach” any more. I can only count on private funding. If you or your friends or friends of your friends are rich people, then create a fund for supporting my research, run it and we will make it possible.

I do not need a crazy amount like a Milner prise, no! A regular salary of a theorist will suffice. And remember, this subject is not a piece of cake, but an exhausting job.

P.S. Et voilà, I became unemployed (27 April 2016). Sponsors, hurry up, I am getting older!

——————————————

[1] Sidney Coleman, Classical Electron Theory from a Modern Standpoint, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM2820.pdf

[2] Gilbert N. Plass, Classical Electrodynamic Equations of Motion with Radiative Reaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. V. 33, 37 (1961), http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.33.37 or https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Db4rFq72mLcUN6bEhweTgyWkE/edit?usp=sharing

[3] V. L. Ginzburg, Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Pergamon Press (1979), http://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Physics-Astrophysics-Monographs-Philosophy/dp/0080230679 , https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Db4rFq72mLWGhCTXVJLUU1WVk/edit?usp=sharing

[4] Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, Chapter 28.

[5] L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, § 75, p. 205.

[6] Jagdish Mehra (editor), The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, (1973), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Db4rFq72mLWnIyM1FSOGcxaDA/edit?usp=sharing

[7] Reformulation instead of renormalization, http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4416

[8] Atom as a “Dressed” Nucleus, http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2635

[9] A toy model of Renormalization and Reformulation, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3702

[10] Unknown Physics of Short Distances, https://www.academia.edu/370847/On_Probing_Small_Distances_in_Quantum_World

[11] On integrating out short-distance physics,  Physics Journal, V. 1. N. 3, pp. 331-342 (2015)

Advertisements

27 Responses to “I Have a Dream!”

  1. John McVirgo Says:

    Why not do something like teaching at a highschool?

    Do something menial like sweeping the roads?

    How much money do you need as a theorist?

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      Hi John,

      I do all I do for others carefully. Teaching is not easy. Especially for me, a foreigner in France.

      Sweeping roads…, how will I look like then? A physicist sweeping roads? Nobody will seriously consider such a theorist. So I continue to work in a serious domain (nuclear power plant safety).

      As a salary, I need 2000-3000 euros/month to forget the rest and concentrate myself on my own subject.

  2. Agnivesh Says:

    Hi Vladimir,
    I don’t know much of physics..currently learning the basics of UG physics.
    I would keep myself confined to classical EM and am curious to know what do you think are the loopholes in classical EM theory and its equations .
    Hoping for a reply

  3. Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

    Hi Agnivesh,

    No, I cannot. My views are here and in my publications, so there is no need to duplicate them.

  4. Robert Miller (Lazarus on scienceforum.net) Says:

    Vladimir,
    Like you, I think physics should be rational. I have some thoughts on classic solutions to some of the bizarre Standard Model contentions. (i. e. Building nuclei from protons and electrons with no Binding Force. One electron can hold three protons together.) I argued with Tom Swanson about ideas on Science Forums and am currently arguing with him and others that Bell’s Inequality Theorem is flawed. My Bachelor’s in Math doesn’t give me much weight. Would you be interested in seeing some of my stuff?
    Bob

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      Dear Robert,

      I used to participate on scienceforum.net, but the traffic there was too low and I quit. As you see, non-mainstream ideas are not welcome. I know nothing about your stuff, but I know that my stuff is mathematically and physically correct, but anyway it is rejected without reading. Currently I am very busy at work with other things (I am a sub-contractor) and I do not even have time form my own stuff. However, if you have something published somewhere (blog, arxiv, etc.), I can have a look at it.

      Regards,

      Vladimir.

  5. collin237 Says:

    You speak of realizing that particles have components. Yes of course, a particle contains a very large (infinite?) set of additive components or “microstates”; everyone knows that. To call a particle elementary means each individual microstate has no known multiplicative components.

    I didn’t see any reference to this distinction in your Reformulation article.

  6. Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

    Hi Collin237, I did not get your point, sorry. Maybe you did not get my point either.

    Your “additive components” mean a superposition of the eigenstates or what?

    What is the meaning of your “multiplicative components”?

  7. collin237 Says:

    Yes, a superposition of eigenstates. Experimental setups are idealized has having only some small set of eigenvalues; but actually, the selection of an eigenstate is never complete. For example, when an electron hits an atom on a screen and ionizes it, it doesn’t actually mark a point on the screen, but the entire domain occupied by the atom in the screen’s molecular lattice.

    States are considered, for mathematical purposes, as members of Fock Space. Loosely speaking, that’s an ascending power series of particle property sets, equipped with addition and multiplication as a ring. Superposition functions as addition, and is interpreted as logical OR. The multiplication, interpreted as logical AND, gives a combined eigenvalue of more than one particle.

    Fock Space has the same problem as Renormalization: It seems to be necessary and successful mathematically, but physically it doesn’t make sense. Actually Fock Space is an even worse problem, because there’s a theorem (I don’t remember the name. Kochen-Specker, perhaps?) that says it can’t work exactly.

    You’ve managed to tackle Renormalization, but only in a model that doesn’t have a Fock Space. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help actual physics which is plagued with both.

    You’ll need a model in which both problems are represented, and find a reformulation that conquers both.

  8. Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

    I guess that “both problems” are represented in my model. Because interaction makes it necessary to consider an “elementary particle” as a part of a compound system in which one can find separated (normal or collective) modes. It is easily seen in my toy model [9].

  9. collin237 Says:

    A classical oscillator needs a physical restraint to separate its modes. Such as the fasteners at the ends of a guitar string, or the walls at the ends of a tube in a flute. Does your model contain such a restriction?

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      Yes, it does. If you look at my mechanical toy model from [9], you will see what the oscillator is. This model contains much physics by itself and it is similar to the realistic cases in question.

      My physical model of electron coupling to the electromegnetic field (=”electronium” [8]) is technically similar, but it has more normal modes (more oscillators). My “Refomulation” approach consists in a different way of coupling mechanism with respect to the (bad) traditional way doctored with renormalizations and soft mode summations.

  10. collin237 Says:

    Looking at [8], I still don’t get what’s new about your theory. The default interpretation of quantum mechanics does not assume pointlike particles anymore. And it already has a large cloud of eigenstates interacting as a compound object.

    If you’re referring to pointlike particles mentioned in popular science magazines, remember that journalists are idiots — especially in physics.

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      Dear Collin237,

      I am a professional Physicist-Theorist, I do not follow journalist’s popular publications. I assume that you do not understand what the problem I am trying to solve – a problem of better coupling. You see, we may couple (mathematically) things in different ways. The traditional way is wrong since it gives wrong results. That is why theorists modify these results. My approach consists in modifying the equations in order to obtain good results without necessity to modify them.

      • collin237 Says:

        If you’re trying to show how to replace traditional equations with a corrected version, it would really help if you use Bra-Ket notation like everyone else does. Otherwise there’s no way to compare.

      • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

        Well, imagine I put everything into a Bra-Ket notations, then how it would really help me? It might help you, but I do not understand what your purpose is. If you want to show me my errors of whatever nature, the I am not interested in this because I know limitations of my models. Frankly, whether I use \psi or |\psi\rangle, it changes nothing in the essense. Can you tell me what your purpose is, please? I am interested in funding; that is why I popularized the issue with coupling by downgrading it to some classical toy models. If even this is not understood, I have no chance to get funding.

  11. collin237 Says:

    P.S.: The appearance of observed particle properties is not “voluntary”. It is an automatic result of detection. It’s well known that in the two-slit experiment the interference pattern disappears whenever one or both detectors is active, even if nobody is watching the result.

  12. collin237 Says:

    Funding???

    I thought we were discussing how to improve and complete physical theories to better represent physical reality. I thought this was about scientific curiosity and the quest for figuring things out. It never crossed my mind that money had anything to do with this.

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      Yes, it was about scientific curiosity and the quest for figuring things out. I have done a lot of research on my own and I think my approach is feasible. As to funding, I have to make living somehow, it is natural. The problem I am tackling is that, which Lorentz, Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger, Pauli, Landau and many other researchers have failed to resolve. It requires a complete concentration rather than a spare-time thinking over. Funding research work is not alien to the Academia, do not try to talk me into what is the opposite to the common practice.

      • collin237 Says:

        Claiming that you can singlehandedly figure out what nobody else can is not a “common practice”. Physics breakthroughs are a cooperative endeavor. And they don’t come from “complete concentration”. All the great physicists have social lives. They discuss things with other physicists. They live life, and give their intuitions time to bake. You need to find a job that gets you in touch with other theorists. A waiter in a university cafeteria perhaps.

        The world is changing. Capitalism is dying. If you could only get off your high horse, join a physics club, and participate in a friendly give-and-take of ideas, you could be part of a dream team. But nobody can do this alone.

  13. Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

    You wrote right things. The only thing, which is wrong in your comment, is about my sitting on a high horse. I always shared and tried to share my ideas with all possible physicists, you just do not know it. Every single new idea I found useful was published in due time. My ideas are quite comprehensible; it not something weird, but belongs to Physics as it is based on Physics of the others and on my own experience. The real my problem is not here, but in my direction “being non-mainstream”, thus it is rejected by the mainstream physicists. They are “happy with renormalizations”, so I am pushed away despite my repeated attempts to convince people that my approach is right and feasible. Being “alone” is not my choice, believe me.

    Now, let us stop this useless correspondence – you have wrong ideas about me, about my research subject, and about how to do my work. Every work must be remunerated, especially a hard one, and I have always been ready to collaborate with the interested researchers. Pity, there is none.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir.

  14. collin237 Says:

    David Zaslavski tried to help you for free, and you refused to listen.

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8428/who-works-professionally-on-reformulation-of-qft

    Did you think I wouldn’t find out?

    You are not willing to collaborate. And nobody has to pay you to write physics essays. You have shown not the tiniest humility, and now I see I’m not alone in that assessment.

    • Vladimir Kalitvianski Says:

      David Zaslavski wanted to move my question to the chat room. It was not helpful. And you see that my question was largely downvoted. It is a common attitude, and yours is also negative. I close our discussion now as useless.

  15. collin237 Says:

    P.S. Thanks for introducing me to Scharf though. 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: