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.
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.
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.
The aim of this paper is to relate algebraic quantum mechanics to topos theory, so as to construct new foundations for quantum logic and quantum spaces. Motivated by Bohr’s idea that the empirical content of quantum physics is accessible only through classical physics, we show how a noncommutative C*-algebra of observables A induces a topos T(A) in which the amalgamation of all of its commutative subalgebras comprises a single commutative C*-algebra A . According to the constructive Gelfand duality theorem of Banaschewski and Mulvey, the latter has an internal spectrum Σ(A) in T(A) , which in our approach plays the role of the quantum phase space of the system. Thus we associate a locale (which is the topos-theoretical notion of a space and which intrinsically carries the intuitionistic logical structure of a Heyting algebra) to a C*-algebra (which is the noncommutative notion of a space). In this setting, states on A become probability measures (more precisely, valuations) on Σ , and self-adjoint elements of A define continuous functions (more precisely, locale maps) from Σ to Scott’s interval domain. Noting that open subsets of Σ(A) correspond to propositions about the system, the pairing map that assigns a (generalized) truth value to a state and a proposition assumes an extremely simple categorical form. Formulated in this way, the quantum theory defined by A is essentially turned into a classical theory, internal to the topos T(A) .These results were inspired by the topos-theoretic approach to quantum physics proposed by Butterfield and Isham, as recently generalized by Döring and Isham.
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 first by Isham and Butterfield, and then by Isham and Döring, as an alternative mathematical structure within which to formulate physical theories. In particular, it has been used to reformulate standard quantum mechanics in such a way that a novel type of logic is used to represent propositions. In this paper, we extend this formulation to include the notion of a group and group transformation in such a way that we overcome the problem of twisted presheaves. In order to implement this we need to change the type of topos involved, so as to render the notion of continuity of the group action meaningful.
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.