We use the mathematical language of sheaf theory to give a unified treatment of non-locality and contextuality, in a setting that generalizes the familiar probability tables used in non-locality theory to arbitrary measurement covers; this includes Kochen–Specker configurations and more. We show that contextuality, and non-locality as a special case, correspond exactly to obstructions to the existence of global sections. We describe a linear algebraic approach to computing these obstructions, which allows a systematic treatment of arguments for non-locality and contextuality. We distinguish a proper hierarchy of strengths of no-go theorems, and show that three leading examples—due to Bell, Hardy and Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger, respectively—occupy successively higher levels of this hierarchy. A general correspondence is shown between the existence of local hidden-variable realizations using negative probabilities, and no-signalling; this is based on a result showing that the linear subspaces generated by the non-contextual and no-signalling models, over an arbitrary measurement cover, coincide. Maximal non-locality is generalized to maximal contextuality, and characterized in purely qualitative terms, as the non-existence of global sections in the support. A general setting is developed for the Kochen–Specker-type results, as generic, model-independent proofs of maximal contextuality, and a new combinatorial condition is given, which generalizes the ‘parity proofs’ commonly found in the literature. We also show how our abstract setting can be represented in quantum mechanics. This leads to a strengthening of the usual no-signalling theorem, which shows that quantum mechanics obeys no-signalling for arbitrary families of commuting observables, not just those represented on different factors of a tensor product.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036/pdf

The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality

A1 Regular and Cartesian Closed Categories A2 Toposes - Basic Theory A3 Allegories A4 Geometric Morphisms - Basic Theory B1 Fibrations and Indexed Categories B2 Internal and Locally Internal Categories B3 Toposes over a base B4 BTop/S as a 2-Category

REVIEWS-Sketches of an elephant: A topos theory compendium

The problem of time in quantum gravity occurs because ‘time’ is taken to have a dierent meaning in each of general relativity and ordinary quantum theory. This incompatibility creates serious problems with trying to replace these two branches of physics with a single framework in regimes in which neither quantum theory nor general relativity can be neglected, such as in black holes or in the very early universe. Strategies for resolving the Problem of Time have evolved somewhat since Kucha r and Isham’s well-known reviews from the early 90’s. These come in the following divisions I) time before quantization, such as hidden time or matter time. II) Time after quantization, such as emergent semiclassical time.

/pdf/the-problem-of-time-in-quantum-gravity-2bz45olsyn.pdf

The problem of time in quantum gravity

This invited chapter in the Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures consists of two parts: 1. A substantially updated version of quant-ph/0402130 by the same authors, which initiated the area of categorical quantum mechanics, but had not yet been published in full length; 2. An overview of the progress which has been made since then in this area.

Categorical quantum mechanics

The Problem of Time occurs because the ‘time’ of GR and of ordinary Quantum Theory are mutually incompatible notions. This is problematic in trying to replace these two branches of physics with a single framework in situations in which the conditions of both apply, e.g. in black holes or in the very early universe. Emphasis in this Review is on the Problem of Time being multi-faceted and on the nature of each of the eight principal facets. Namely, the Frozen Formalism Problem, Configurational Relationalism Problem (formerly Sandwich Problem), Foliation Dependence Problem, Constraint Closure Problem (formerly Functional Evolution Problem), Multiple Choice Problem, Global Problem of Time, Problem of Beables (alias Problem of Observables) and Spacetime Reconstruction/Replacement Problem. Strategizing in this Review is not just centred about the Frozen Formalism Problem facet, but rather about each of the eight facets. Particular emphasis is placed upon A) relationalism as an underpinning of the facets and as a selector of particular strategies (especially a modification of Barbour relationalism, though also with some consideration of Rovelli relationalism). B) Classifying approaches by the full ordering in which they embrace constrain, quantize, find time/history and find observables, rather than only by partial orderings such as “Dirac-quantize”. C) Foliation (in)dependence and Spacetime Reconstruction for a wide range of physical theories, strategizing centred about the Problem of Beables, the Patching Approach to the Global Problem of Time, and the role of the question-types considered in physics. D) The Halliwell- and Gambini–Porto–Pullin-type combined Strategies in the context of semiclassical quantum cosmology.

Problem of time in quantum gravity

The goal of this paper is to summarise the first steps in developing 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. In doing so we provide a new answer to Heidegger's timeless question ``What is a thing?''. 
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 uses the topos of sets. Other theories involve a different topos. For the types of theory discussed in this paper, a key goal is to represent any physical quantity $A$ with an arrow $\breve{A}_\phi:\Si_\phi\map\R_\phi$ where $\Si_\phi$ and $\R_\phi$ are two special objects (the `state-object' and `quantity-value object') in the appropriate topos, $\tau_\phi$. 
We discuss two different types of language that can be attached to a system, $S$. The first, $\PL{S}$, is a propositional language; the second, $Ł{S}$, is a higher-order, typed language. Both languages provide deductive systems with an intuitionistic logic. With the aid of $\PL{S}$ we expand and develop some of the earlier work (By CJI and collaborators.) on topos theory and quantum physics. A key step is a process we term `daseinisation' by which a projection operator is mapped to a sub-object of the spectral presheaf $\Sig$--the topos quantum analogue of a classical state space. The topos concerned is $\SetH{}$: the category of contravariant set-valued functors on the category (partially ordered set) $\V{}$ of commutative sub-algebras of the algebra of bounded operators on the quantum Hilbert space $\Hi$.

`What is a Thing?': Topos Theory in the Foundations of Physics

This paper is the first 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 discuss two different types of language that can be attached to a system, S. The first is a propositional language, PL(S); the second is a higher-order, typed language L(S). Both languages provide deductive systems with an intuitionistic logic. The reason for introducing PL(S) is that, as shown in paper II of the series, it is the easiest way of understanding, and expanding on, the earlier work on topos theory and quantum physics. However, the main thrust of our programme utilises the more powerful language L(S) and its representation in an appropriate topos.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703060.pdf

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: I. Formal Languages for Physics

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 $\breve{\delta}^o(A):\Sig\map\SR$, where $\SR$ is the quantity-value object for this theory. The construction of $\breve{\delta}^o(A)$ is an extension of the daseinisation of projection operators that was discussed in paper II. The object $\SR$ is a monoid-object only in the topos, $\tau_\phi$, of the theory, and to enhance the applicability of the formalism, we apply to $\SR$ a topos analogue of the Grothendieck extension of a monoid to a group. The resulting object, $\kSR$, is an abelian group-object in $\tau_\phi$. We also discuss another candidate, $\PR{\mathR}$, for the quantity-value object. In this presheaf, both inner and outer daseinisation are used in a symmetric way. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the role of unitary operators in the quantum topos scheme.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703064.pdf

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: III. The Representation of Physical Quantities With Arrows

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 sub-object of the spectral presheaf--the topos quantum analogue 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 microstates in the sense of classical physics. Truth objects therefore play a crucial role in our formalism.

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: II. Daseinisation and the Liberation of Quantum Theory

This paper is the fourth in a series whose goal is to develop a fundamentally new way of building theories of physics. The motivation comes from a desire to address certain deep issues that arise in the quantum theory of gravity. 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. The previous papers in this series are concerned with implementing this programme for a single system. In the present paper, we turn to considering a collection of systems: in particular, we are interested in the relation between the topos representation for a composite system, and the representations for its constituents. We also study this problem for the disjoint sum of two systems. Our approach to these matters is to construct a category of systems and to find a topos representation of the entire category.

Andreas Doering

Papers

`What is a Thing?': Topos Theory in the Foundations of Physics

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: I. Formal Languages for Physics

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: III. The Representation of Physical Quantities With Arrows

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: II. Daseinisation and the Liberation of Quantum Theory

A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: IV. Categories of Systems