Extending the Topos Quantum Theory Approach

  • Cecilia Flori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Physics book series (LNP, volume 944)


As it has been developed so far, the mathematical formalism of topos quantum theory only allows for taking into consideration one physical system at a time. This has clearly some limitations, in particular when trying to consider composite systems. Hence it comes natural to try and enlarge the mathematical formalism so that is is possible to take into consideration various physical systems at the same time. This implies considering a topos somewhat “larger” than the topos \(\textbf {Sets}^{\mathcal {V}(\mathcal {H})^{\mathrm {op}}}\). In particular what needs to be “enlarged” is the category \( \mathcal {V}(\mathcal {H})\). In fact this category only refers to the physical system with associated von Neumann algebra \(\mathcal {N}\), whose category of abliean subalgebras is given by \(\mathcal {V}(\mathcal {H})\). However we would like to consider all physical systems, each of which, has associated to it a different von Neumann algebra. To account for this, one possibility would be to construct a category in which each element is itself a topos which represents the mathematical formalism of a physical system. Then one would have to construct a mapping which associates to each physical system its associated topos. The aim would be to turn this map into a geometric morphism of some sort between topoi, such that it possesses nice properties which would help to better understand composite systems. In the following we will present all work done so far in this direction, which is an exposition of the results obtained in [30]. As it will be clear in due course, there are still many open problems to be addressed.


  1. 6.
    H. Barnum, M.P. Muller, C. Ududec, Higher-order interference and single-system postulates characterizing quantum theory. New J. Phys. 16 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 26.
    C. Flori, A First Course in Topos Quantum Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 868 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2013)Google Scholar
  3. 30.
    C. Flori, T. Fritz, (Almost) C -algebras as sheaves with self-action. J. Noncomm. Geom. 11(3), 1069–1113 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 31.
    G.B. Folland, A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 32.
    R. Garner, Remarks on exactness notions pertaining to pushouts. Theory Appl. Categ. 27(1), 2–9 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 34.
    A. Grinbaum, Reconstruction of quantum theory (2006). philsci-archive.Google Scholar
  7. 35.
    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras. Texts and Monographs in Physics, 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 1996)Google Scholar
  8. 36.
    J. Hamhalter, Quantum Measure Theory. Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 134 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 39.
    L. Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001). arXiv:quant-ph/0101012Google Scholar
  10. 40.
    L. Hardy, Reformulating and reconstructing quantum theory (2011). arXiv:1104.2066 [quant-ph]Google Scholar
  11. 41.
    C. Heunen, M.L. Reyes, Active lattices determine AW-algebras. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 416(1), 289–313 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 44.
    J.R. Isbell, Adequate subcategories. Ill. J. Math. 4, 541–552 (1960)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 47.
    B. Jacobs, New directions in categorical logic, for classical, probabilistic and quantum logic. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 11, 3 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 52.
    N.P. Landsman, Algebraic Quantum Mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 6–10Google Scholar
  15. 53.
    R.C. Lyndon, P.E. Schupp, Combinatorial Group Theory. Classics in Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, 2001). Reprint of the 1977 editionGoogle Scholar
  16. 54.
    S. MacLane, Categories for the Working Mathematician (Springer, London, 1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 55.
    S. MacLane, I. Moerdijk, Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory (Springer, London, 1968)Google Scholar
  18. 58.
    M. Nilsen, C -bundles and C 0(X)-algebras. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 45(2), 463–477 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 60.
    N.C. Phillips, Continuous-trace C*-algebras not isomorphic to their opposite algebras. Int. J. Math. 12(3), 263–275 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 61.
    M.L. Reyes, Sheaves that fail to represent matrix rings, in Ring Theory and Its Applications. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 609 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI), pp. 285–29 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 62.
    A. Rosenberg, Noncommutative ‘Spaces’ and ‘Stacks’. Selected Papers on Noncommutative Geometry (New Prairie Press, 2014)Google Scholar
  22. 63.
    A. Rosenberg, M. Kontsevich, Noncommutative Spaces. Selected Papers on Noncommutative Geometry (New Prairie Press, 2014)Google Scholar
  23. 65.
    M. Shulman, Exact completions and small sheaves. Theory Appl. Categ. 27(7), 97–173 (2012)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 66.
    S. Staton, S. Uijlen, Effect algebras, presheaves, non-locality and contextuality, in Automata, Languages, and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9135 (Springer, Berlin, 2015), pp. 401–413Google Scholar
  25. 67.
    E. Størmer, On the Jordan structure of C*-algebras. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 120(3), 438–447 (1965)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 70.
    F. Strocchi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum Mechanics. Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics, vol. 28, 2nd edn. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008)Google Scholar
  27. 71.
    M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I (Springer, Berlin, 2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 72.
    B. van den Berg, C. Heunen, Noncommutativity as a colimit. Appl. Categ. Struct. 20(4), 393–414 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Flori
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing and Mathematical SciencesThe Waikato UniversityHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations