Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2110.06793

Topos-Theoretic Approaches to Quantum Theory

Matthijs Vákár

Published Oct 11, 2021• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This review paper surveys work by Isham, Butterfield, Döring, Landsman, Spitters, Heunen, and others on topos-theoretic analyses of quantum theory. It aims to provide a synthesized account of their various approaches.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2110.06793

Related papers

A Comparison of Two Topos-Theoretic Approaches to Quantum Theory

Sander Wolters

Communications in Mathematical Physics•Dec 26, 2012•22 citations

Topos models for physics and topos theory

Sander Wolters

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.

arXiv:1309.5640•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Aug 1, 2014•6 citations

Lectures on Topos Quantum Theory

Cecilia Flori

This is a series of lecture notes explaining topos theory and its application in physics.

arXiv:1207.1744•Jul 6, 2012•3 citations

3 Topos Models for Physics and Topos Theory

Sander Wolters

What is the role of topos theory in the topos models for quantum theory as used by Isham, Butterfield, Doring, 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 Doring 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.

•Jan 1, 2014•7 citations

A Comparison of Two Topos-Theoretic Approaches to Quantum Theory

Sander Wolters

The aim of this paper is to compare the two topos-theoretic approaches to quantum mechanics that may be found in the literature to date. The first approach, which we will call the contravariant approach, was originally proposed by Isham and Butterfield, and was later extended by Doering and Isham. The second approach, which we will call the covariant approach, was developed by Heunen, Landsman and Spitters. Motivated by coarse-graining and the Kochen-Specker theorem, the contravariant approach uses the topos of presheaves on a specific context category, defined as the poset of commutative von Neumann subalgebras of some given von Neumann algebra. In particular, the approach uses the spectral presheaf. The intuitionistic logic of this approach is given by the (complete) Heyting algebra of closed open subob jects of the spectral presheaf. We show that this Heyting algebra is, in a natural way, a locale in the ambient topos, and compare this locale with the internal Gelfand spectrum of the covariant approach. In the covariant approach, a non-commutative C*-algebra (in the topos Set) defines a commutative C*-algebra internal to the topos of covariant functors from the context category to the category of sets. We give an explicit description of the internal Gelfand spectrum of this commutative C*-algebra, from which it follows that the external spectrum is spatial. Using the daseinisation of self-adjoint operators from the contravariant approach, we give a new definition of the daseinisation arrow in the covariant approach and compare it with the original version. States and state-proposition pairing in both approaches are compared. We also investigate the physical interpretation of the covariant approach.

arXiv:1010.2031•Oct 11, 2010•7 citations

Some Possible Roles for Topos Theory in Quantum Theory and Quantum Gravity

C. J. Isham, J. Butterfield

arXiv:gr-qc/9910005•Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 2000•63 citations
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.
What is the role of topos theory in the topos models for quantum theory as used by Isham, Butterfield, Doring, 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 Doring 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.
The aim of this paper is to compare the two topos-theoretic approaches to quantum mechanics that may be found in the literature to date. The first approach, which we will call the contravariant approach, was originally proposed by Isham and Butterfield, and was later extended by Doering and Isham. The second approach, which we will call the covariant approach, was developed by Heunen, Landsman and Spitters. Motivated by coarse-graining and the Kochen-Specker theorem, the contravariant approach uses the topos of presheaves on a specific context category, defined as the poset of commutative von Neumann subalgebras of some given von Neumann algebra. In particular, the approach uses the spectral presheaf. The intuitionistic logic of this approach is given by the (complete) Heyting algebra of closed open subob jects of the spectral presheaf. We show that this Heyting algebra is, in a natural way, a locale in the ambient topos, and compare this locale with the internal Gelfand spectrum of the covariant approach. In the covariant approach, a non-commutative C*-algebra (in the topos Set) defines a commutative C*-algebra internal to the topos of covariant functors from the context category to the category of sets. We give an explicit description of the internal Gelfand spectrum of this commutative C*-algebra, from which it follows that the external spectrum is spatial. Using the daseinisation of self-adjoint operators from the contravariant approach, we give a new definition of the daseinisation arrow in the covariant approach and compare it with the original version. States and state-proposition pairing in both approaches are compared. We also investigate the physical interpretation of the covariant approach.