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 [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. 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.

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 [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)

July 28, 2014 at 22:00 |

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?

July 29, 2014 at 09:56 |

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.

March 2, 2015 at 19:03 |

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

March 2, 2015 at 20:16 |

Hi Agnivesh,

There is a problem of consistency of self-acting point-like charge. You may read about it in many textbooks. I addition to what I cited, I can recommend Chapter 28 of the Feynman lectures (Electrodynamics). The small radiation reaction term is not small and is not of radiation reaction, but a self-induction. That is why we replace it with something else. I outlined it here: https://vladimirkalitvianski.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/on-the-higgs-fake-book-by-alexander-unzicker/

March 5, 2015 at 05:43 |

@Vladimir Kalitvianski : Hope I will soon be able to understand all this at an appreciable level of depth .I was confused about few basic topics of electrodynamics ,.Could you post some of your views on my stackexchange page ?

March 5, 2015 at 12:26 |

Hi Agnivesh,

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

December 13, 2015 at 02:15 |

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

December 13, 2015 at 13:30 |

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.