We provide a conceptual discussion and physical interpretation of some of the quite abstract constructions in the topos approach to physics. In particular, the daseinisation process for projection operators and for self-adjoint operators is motivated and explained from a physical point of view. Daseinisation provides the bridge between the standard Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory and the new topos-based approach to quantum theory. As an illustration, we will show all constructions explicitly for a three-dimensional Hilbert space and the spin-z operator of a spin-1 particle. This article is a companion to the article by Isham in the same volume.
We provide a conceptual discussion and physical interpretation of some of the quite abstract constructions in the topos approach to physics. In particular, the daseinisation process for projection operators and for self-adjoint operators is motivated and explained from a physical point of view. Daseinisation provides the bridge between the standard Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory and the new topos-based approach to quantum theory. As an illustration, we will show all constructions explicitly for a three-dimensional Hilbert space and the spin-z operator of a spin-1 particle. This article is a companion to the article by Isham in the same volume.
Introduction This chapter provides a conceptual discussion and physical interpretation of some of the quite abstract constructions in the topos approach to physics. In particular, the daseinisation process for projection operators and for self-adjoint operators is motivated and explained from a physical point of view. Daseinisation provides the bridge between the standard Hilbert space formalism of quantum theory and the new topos-based approach to quantum theory. As an illustration, I show all constructions explicitly for a three-dimensional Hilbert space and the spin- z operator of a spin-1 particle. Throughout, I refer to joint work with Chris Isham, and this chapter is intended to serve as a companion to the one he contributed to this volume. The Topos Approach The topos approach to quantum theory was initiated by Isham [21] and Butterfield and Isham [19, 22–24]. It was developed and broadened into an approach to the formulation of physical theories in general by Isham and by this author [12–15]. The long article [16] gives a more or less exhaustive and coherent overview of the approach. More recent developments are the description of arbitrary states by probability measures [9] and further developments [10] concerning the new form of quantum logic that constitutes a central part of the topos approach. For background, motivation, and the main ideas, see also Isham's Chapter 3 in this volume.
This paper is the third in a series whose goal is to develop a fundamentally new way of viewing theories of physics. Our basic contention is that constructing a theory of physics is equivalent to finding a representation in a topos of a certain formal language that is attached to the system. In Paper II, we studied the topos representations of the propositional language PL(S) for the case of quantum theory, and in the present paper we do the same thing for the, more extensive, local language L(S). One of the main achievements is to find a topos representation for self-adjoint operators. This involves showing that, for any physical quantity A, there is an arrow δ̆o(A):Σ̱→R≽̱, where R≽̱ is the quantity-value object for this theory. The construction of δ̆o(Â) is an extension of the daseinisation of projection operators that was discussed in Paper II. The object R≽̱ is a monoid object only in the topos, τϕ=SetsV(H)op, of the theory, and to enhance the applicability of the formalism, we apply to R≽̱ a topos analog of the Grothendieck extension of a monoid to a group. The resulting object, k(R≽̱), is an abelian group object in τϕ. We also discuss another candidate, R↔̱, for the quantity-value object. In this presheaf, both inner and outer daseinisations are used in a symmetric way. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the role of unitary operators in the quantum topos scheme.
This paper is the second in a series whose goal is to develop a fundamentally new way of constructing theories of physics. The motivation comes from a desire to address certain deep issues that arise when contemplating quantum theories of space and time. Our basic contention is that constructing a theory of physics is equivalent to finding a representation in a topos of a certain formal language that is attached to the system. Classical physics arises when the topos is the category of sets. Other types of theory employ a different topos. In this paper, we study in depth the topos representation of the propositional language, PL(S), for the case of quantum theory. In doing so, we make a direct link with, and clarify, the earlier work on applying topos theory to quantum physics. The key step is a process we term “daseinisation” by which a projection operator is mapped to a subobject of the spectral presheaf—the topos quantum analog of a classical state space. In the second part of the paper, we change gear with the introduction of the more sophisticated local language L(S). From this point forward, throughout the rest of the series of papers, our attention will be devoted almost entirely to this language. In the present paper, we use L(S) to study “truth objects” in the topos. These are objects in the topos that play the role of states: a necessary development as the spectral presheaf has no global elements, and hence, there are no micro-states in the sense of classical physics. Truth objects therefore play a crucial role in our formalism.
Topos theory has been suggested by Döring and Isham as an alternative mathematical structure with which to formulate, in general, physical theories. However, the motivation for using it to express quantum theory, lies in the desire to solve certain interpretational problems inherent in the standard formulation of the theory. In fact, the topos approach to quantum theory overcomes the instrumentalist–Copenhagen interpretation, rendering the theory more realist. The caveat is that one ends up with a multivalued–intuitionistic logic, rather than a Boolean logic.
The aim of this chapter is to present (in a compact way) the fundamentals of conventional quantum theory. We select the for- mulation of QM as an axiomatic theory in the complete accordance with the Hilbert’s program on axiomatization of physical theories. We remark that the first step toward the present formulation of QM was done in the seminal work of Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann [112]. This work was substantially extended, completed, and clarified in the book of von Neumann [296]. Another version of the rigorous mathematical approach to QM was presented in the book of Dirac [74]. From the mathematical viewpoint, the main difference between the approaches of von Neumann and Dirac is that the first one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators in complex Hilbert space and the second one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators acting (by using the modern mathematical terminology) in rigged Hilbert spaces. This theory operates with generalized eigenvectors belonging to the spaces of distributions. Although the von Neumann’s formalization of QM became dominant in quantum mathematical physics, the Dirac’s formalization is widely used in the works on the physical level of rigorousness. Moreover, the Dirac’s terminology, bra-and ket- vectors, became the standard for quantum information theory. However, since quantum information is based on the castrated version of QM, namely, QM in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the so-called n-qubit spaces, the basic tool of the Dirac’s formalism, usage of generalized eigenvectors, is useless (since in the finite- dimensional case everything is reduced to manipulation with matrices). During the last 80 years, there were written hundreds of books on QM enlightening its foundational aspects. Unfortunately, the majority of these writings advertise exotic (and some of them really esoteric) views on QM and, in particular, on interpretation of the wave function. They are full of such terms as the collapse of the wave function, quantumnonlocality, manyworlds, thewave function of universe, the preparation of Schro¨dinger cats, influence of the future on the past, quantum teleportation. Of course, manipulations with such terminology create an atmosphere of mystery and a feeling that something unusual and impossible can happen. And this atmosphere plays a positive role in attracting young people to QM and especially to quantum foundations.
What is the role of topos theory in the topos models for quantum theory as used by Isham, Butterfield, Döring, Heunen, Landsman, Spitters, and others? In other words, what is the interplay between physical motivation for the models and the mathematical framework used in these models? Concretely, we show that the presheaf topos model of Butterfield, Isham, and Döring resembles classical physics when viewed from the internal language of the presheaf topos, similar to the copresheaf topos model of Heunen, Landsman, and Spitters. Both the presheaf and copresheaf models provide a “quantum logic” in the form of a complete Heyting algebra. Although these algebras are natural from a topos theoretic stance, we seek a physical interpretation for the logical operations. Finally, we investigate dynamics. In particular, we describe how an automorphism on the operator algebra induces a homeomorphism (or isomorphism of locales) on the associated state spaces of the topos models, and how elementary propositions and truth values transform under the action of this homeomorphism. Also with dynamics the focus is on the internal perspective of the topos.