Is M-Theory more fundamental than String Theory?

[S Beck]

M-Theory is a theory of membranes which are the fundamental objects of the theory (M2 and M5 branes), however these objects are considered solitons, solutions of supergravity. How can membranes be "fundamental" if they are solitonic solutions of supergravity? Or am I missing something? And is M-Theory a replacement to String Theory or a theory more fundamental than String Theory? Thanks.

 

[PhanthomJay]

Well I don’t know about ‘fundamental’ , but M Theory-combines the various superstring variations of String Theory into one glorious Mother theory of all theories. It will likely replace String theory one day. Some physicists, including the great Stephen Hawking, speculate that it is the only theory that can lead to a theory of everything and perhaps Unlock the deepest secrets of the universe. Problem is that the theory right now is unfalsibiale, with its Brane universes and such, but with the confirmation of gravitational waves and the long sought theory of quantum gravity, who knows. In any case , M theory will continue in the spotlight for decades to come.

 

[S Beck]

Well I don’t know about ‘fundamental’ , but M Theory-combines the various superstring variations of String Theory into one glorious Mother theory of all theories. It will likely replace String theory one day. Some physicists, including the great Stephen Hawking, speculate that it is the only theory that can lead to a theory of everything and perhaps Unlock the deepest secrets of the universe. Problem is that the theory right now is unfalsibiale, with its Brane universes and such, but with the confirmation of gravitational waves and the long sought theory of quantum gravity, who knows. In any case , M theory will continue in the spotlight for decades to come.

Thanks for the reply. Assuming that 'fundamental' refers to my question on if M Theory is more fundamental than String Theory then it answers the main question and I appreciate it.

But what about the M2 and M5 branes? If they are solitonic then how can they be fundamental objects? Or am I missing something?

 

[Demystifier]

But what about the M2 and M5 branes? If they are solitonic then how can they be fundamental objects? Or am I missing something?

Branes are not fundamental in M-theory. If you ask what then is fundamental in M-theory, the answer is - nobody knows.

 

[Fra]

This is an old note from Baez http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/nth_quantization.html that relates to this that you can contemplate to. There is a conceptual way to associate higher order quantizations to higher dimensions; and trade them for each other. A field can be associated to a second quantized first wavefuntion.
ing? What is a brane? Let's go back and ask what is a string? If you can answer then you can probalby also say what is a p-brane? or? IMO, its the induction step that is interesting.

/Fredrik