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 (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 is not applicable at “small times” and one must use instead , 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 , !
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. 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 , and for the sake of that we must search for better Hamiltonians, better formulations, better description than the current one, is my motto too.
If 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:
and including some of this “good” (renormalized, to be exact) Lagrangian terms into a new initial approximation, i.e., figuratively speaking, I mean representing:
The new “free” Lagrangian will contain soft modes and physical constants by construction. Then the “interaction term” will be different too:
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 , . 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.
P.S. Et voilà, I became unemployed (27 January 2016). Sponsors, hurry up, I am getting older!
 Sidney Coleman, Classical Electron Theory from a Modern Standpoint, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM2820.pdf
 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
 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
 Jagdish Mehra (editor), The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, (1973), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Db4rFq72mLWnIyM1FSOGcxaDA/edit?usp=sharing
 Reformulation instead of renormalization, http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4416
 Atom as a “Dressed” Nucleus, http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2635
 A toy model of Renormalization and Reformulation, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3702
 Unknown Physics of Short Distances, https://www.academia.edu/370847/On_Probing_Small_Distances_in_Quantum_World
 On integrating out short-distance physics, Physics Journal, V. 1. N. 3, pp. 331-342 (2015)