Quantum p-adic deformations of space-time surfaces as a representation of finite measurement resolution?

A mathematically fascinating question is whether one could use quantum arithmetics as a tool to build quantum deformations of partonic 2-surfaces or even of space-time surfaces and how could one achieve this. These quantum space-times would be commutative and therefore not like non-commutative geometries assigned with quantum groups. Perhaps one could see them as commutative semiclassical counterparts of non-commutative quantum geometries just as the commutative quantum groups (see this) could be seen commutative counterparts of quantum groups.

As one tries to develop a new mathematical notion and interpret it, one tends to forget the motivations for the notion. It is however extremely important to remember why the new notion is needed.

1. In the case of quantum arithmetics Shnoll effect is one excellent experimental motivation. The understanding of canonical identification and realization of number theoretical universality are also good motivations coming already from p-adic mass calculations. A further motivation comes from a need to solve a mathematical problem: canonical identification for ordinary p-adic numbers does not commute with symmetries.

2. There are also good e motivations for p-adic numbers? p-Adic numbers and quantum phases can be assigned to finite measurement resolution in length measurement and in angle measurement. This with a good reason since finite measurement resolution means the loss of ordering of points of real axis in short scales and this is certainly one outcome of a finite measurement resolution. This is also assumed to relate to the fact that cognition organizes the world to objects defined by clumps of matter and with the lumps ordering of points does not matter.

3. Why quantum deformations of partonic 2-surfaces (or more ambitiously: space-time surfaces) would be needed? Could they represent convenient representatives for partonic 2-surfaces (space-time surfaces) within finite measurement resolution?
   1. If this is accepted there is not compelling need to assume that this kind of space-time surfaces are preferred extremals of Kähler action.

   2. The notion of quantum arithmetics and the interpretation of p-adic topology in terms of finite measurement resolution however suggest that they might obey field equations in preferred coordinates but not in the real differentiable structure but in what might be called quantum p-adic differentiable structure associated with prime p.

   3. Canonical identification would map these quantum p-adic partonic (space-time surfaces) to their real counterparts in a unique a continuous manner and the image would be real space-time surface in finite measurement resolution. It would be continuous but not differentiable and would not of course satisfy field equations for Kähler action anymore. What is nice is that the inverse of the canonical identification which is two-valued for finite number of pinary digits would not be needed in the correspondence.

   4. This description might be relevant also to quantum field theories (QFTs). One usually assumes that minima obey partial differential equations although the local interactions in QFTs are highly singular so that the quantum average field configuration might not even possess differentiable structure in the ordinary sense! Therefore quantum p-adicity might be more appropriate for the minima of effective action.

   The conclusion would be that commutative quantum deformations of space-time surfaces indeed have a useful function in TGD Universe.

Consider now in more detail the identification of the quantum deformations of space-time surfaces.

1. Rationals are in the intersection of real and p-adic number fields and the representation of numbers as rationals r=m/n is the essence of quantum arithmetics. This means that m and n are expanded to series in powers of p and coefficients of the powers of p which are smaller than p are replaced by the quantum counterparts. They are quantum quantum counterparts of integers smaller than p. This restriction is essential for the uniqueness of the map assigning to a give rational quantum rationals.

2. One must get also quantum p-adics and the idea is simple: if the pinary expansions of m and n in positive powers of p are allowed o become infinite, one obtains a continuum very much analogous to that of ordinary p-adic integers with exactly the same arithmetics. This continuum can be mapped to reals by canonical identification. The possibility to work with numbers which are formally rationals is utmost importance for achieving the correct map to reals. It is possible to use the counterparts of ordinary pinary expansions in p-adic arithmetics.

3. One can defined quantum p-adic derivatives and the rules are familiar to anyone. Quantum p-adic variants of field equations for Kähler action make sense.
   1. One can take a solution of p-adic field equations and by the commutativity of the map r=m/n→ r_q=m_q/n_q and of arithmetic operations replace p-adic rationals with their quantum counterparts in the expressions of quantum p-adic imbedding space coordinates h^k in terms of space-time coordinates x^α.

   2. After this one can map the quantum p-adic surface to a continuous real surface by using the replacement p→ 1/p for every quantum rational. This space-time surface does not anymore satisfy the field equations since canonical identification is not even differentiable. This surface - or rather its quantum p-adic pre-image - would represent a space-time surface within measurement resolution. One can however map the induced metric and induced gauge fields to their real counterparts using canonical identification to get something which is continuous but non-differentiable.

4. This construction works nicely if in the preferred coordinates for imbedding space and partonic (space-time) surface itself the imbedding space coordinates are rational functions of space-time coordinates with rational coefficients of polynomials (also Taylor and Laurent series with rational coefficients could be considered as limits). This kind of assumption is very restrictive but in accordance with the fact that the measurement resolution is finite and that the representative for the space-time surface in finite measurement resolution is to some extent a convention. The use of rational coefficients for the polynomials involved implies that for polynomials of finite degree WCW reduces to a discrete set so that finite measurement resolution has been indeed realized quite concretely!

Consider now how the notion of finite measurement resolution allows to circumvent the objections against the construction.

1. Manifest GCI is lost because the expression for space-time coordinates as quantum rationals is not general coordinate invariant notion unless one restricts the consideration to rational maps and because the real counterpart of the quantum p-adic space-time surface depends on the choice of coordinates. The condition that the space-time surface is represented in terms of rational functions is a strong constraint but not enough to fix the choice of coordinates. Rational maps of both imbedding space and space-time produce new coordinates similar to these provided the coefficients are rational.

2. Different choices for imbedding space and space-time surface lead to different quantum p-adic space-time surface and its real counterpart. This is an outcome of finite measurement resolution. Since one cannot order the space-time points below the measurement resolution, one cannot fix uniquely the space-time surface nor uniquely fix the coordinates used. This implies the loss of manifest general coordinate invariance and also the non-uniqueness of quantum real space-time surface. The choice of coordinates is analogous to gauge choice and quantum real space-time surface preserves the information about the gauge.