A comparison of two topos-theoretic approaches to quantum theory (Q1936655)

The author locates the starting point of topos theory in quantum mechanics in the paper by \textit{M. Adelman} and \textit{J. V. Corbett} [Appl. Categ. Struct. 3, No. 1, 79--104 (1995; Zbl 0833.18003)]. Since then, several approaches have been started, two of which are compared in this paper: The so-called \textit{contravariant approach} of \textit{J. Butterfield} and \textit{C. J. Isham} [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 41, No. 4, 613--639 (2002; Zbl 1021.81002)], \textit{A. Döring} and \textit{C. J. Isham} [J. Math. Phys. 49, No. 5, 053518, 29 p. (2008; Zbl 1152.81411)] versus the \textit{covariant approach} of \textit{C. Heunen} et al. [Commun. Math. Phys. 291, No. 1, 63--110 (2009; Zbl 1209.81147)]. In the contravariant approach (see also \textit{C. Flori} [A first course in topos quantum theory. Berlin: Springer (2013; Zbl 1280.81001)]) quantum systems are described by von Neumann algebras \(A\), the poset (category) \({\mathcal V}(A)\) of its commutative von Neumann subalgebras ordered by inclusion, and the category \(Con\) of contravariant functors from \({\mathcal V}(A)\) to \(Set\), the category of sets. Among these functors the so-called \textit{spectral presheaf} \(\underline{\Sigma}\), which maps a commutative subalgebra to her Gel'fand spectrum, serves as state object. Since \(Con\) is a topos, one may consider subobjects of \(\underline{\Sigma}\). Now, the set of \({\mathcal O}_{cl}\underline{\Sigma}\) of closed open subobjects of \(\underline{\Sigma}\) is a Heyting algebra, which represents propositions about the system. The author constructs a compact, not necessarily regular locale \(\underline{\Sigma}^*\) in \(Con\) and an injective morphism of complete Heyting algebras \({\mathcal O}_{cl}\underline{\Sigma} \rightarrow {\mathcal O}\Sigma^*\), [Thm.1, Cor. 1, Cor. 2]. Here, \({\mathcal O}\Sigma^*\) is a certain topology on \(\Sigma\), where \(\Sigma\) is the disjoint union of the Gel'fand spectra of all commutative von Neumann subalgebras of \(A\). In the covariant approach one works with a unital \(C^*\)-algebra \(A\), the poset \({\mathcal C}(A)\) of its unital commutative \(C^*\)-subalgebras, and the category \(Cov\) of covariant functors from \({\mathcal C}(A)\) to \(Set\). The object \(\underline{A}\) of \(Cov\) where \(\underline{A}(C)=C\) for any object \(C\in {\mathcal C}(A)\) and morphisms are given by inclusion is a commutative \(C^*\)-subalgebra internal to \(Cov\), the so-called \textit{bohrification} of \(A\). The author describes the internal Gel'fand spectrum \(\underline{\Sigma}_{\underline{A}}\) of \(\underline{A}\) as an \(Cov\)-internal locale \(\underline{\Sigma}_*\), which arises via a projection \({\Sigma}_*\rightarrow {\mathcal C}(A)\), where \(\Sigma_*\) equals the disjoint union \(\Sigma\) of the Gel'fand spectra of all commutative \(C^*\)-subalgebras equipped with a convenient topology [Thm. 3, Cor. 3]. Furthermore, the author recalls inner and outer daseinisation arrows in the contravariant case, and uses them to define a covariant daseinisation map and covariant elementary propositions. The covariant daseinisation map factors through the direct sum of the family \(\{{\mathcal F}_C \mid C\in {\mathcal V}(A)\}\), where \({\mathcal F}_C\) denotes the set of all filters on \(C\) [Thm. 5]. Finally, states and the assignment of truth values are examined and compared in both approaches. Many detailed remarks on common properties and on differences between the two approaches, as well as physical interpretations supplement the paper.