Non-Perturbative Quantum Field Theory

[ComradeRed]

I am writing a paper, and frankly the only quantum field theory that I am aware of is eitehr involving supersymmetry (which is artificial nonsense) or perturbation (which is not good). Is there any quantum field theory that involves neither?

For those who do not know, a field theory is a physics theory that describes a force (if and only if potential energy is involved). This is explained by Lagrangians (that is, a Lagrangian = Kinetic Energy minus Potential Energy), and then some tricky math can make it a Hamiltonian (which describes the energy of the system as a whole, and can explain the evolution of the system).

A Quantum Field theory is just what is says: it is a quantized field theory.

The reason I ask is because my paper is on quantum gravity (the only force that has yet to be quantized), and I was taught the "old school" way of quantum field theory (using path integrals, renormalization, perturbation, etc.) and it is inadequate for my work (and I don't want to invent a new quantum field theory!).

[Floyce White]

"Field forces" is hogwash. "Fields" of what-where-when? It's a nice mathematical way to describe the interactions of huge numbers of particles, but in the absence of discrete particles, it's nonsense.

All forces are due to the collision of elementary particles. The math is simple.

[ComradeRed]

Even if we have not seen these particles in reality?

For example, I am writing about quantum gravity...where is the graviton in nature? Humans have not seen it. Its existence is postulated NOT PROVEN!

Quantum field theory essentially is the stepping stone of putting classical fields in terms of "colliding particles"...but some fields don't work that way (e.g. gravity). What then?

[Floyce White]

Yes, gravity does work that way. I proved it when I was 19, and then realized the work would be used to make weapons, so I destroyed the work. So be nice and take my word for it...and write your paper about "charmed quarks" and such ever-smaller-to-infinity particles.

[1984]

What about the p-brane theory?