Or one may admit non-standard interpretations, and seek to locate QuantumMechanics in a larger “space” of theories.There is an alternative and complementary approach, which has beenless explored in the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, although it hasproved very fruitful in mathematics, logic and theoretical computer science.Namely, one looks for conceptually natural
constructions of models
. Often anew model construction can suggest new axioms, articulated in terms of newforms of structure. There are many examples of this phenomenon, sheavesand topos theory being one case in point, and domain-theoretic modelsof the
-calculus another .A successful recent example of gaining insight by model constructionis the well-known paper by Rob Spekkens on a toy model for QuantumMechanics, which has led to novel ideas on the connections betweenphase groups and non-locality .
Big Toy Models
We shall also, in a sense, be concerned with “toy mod-els” in the present paper; with building models which exhibit “quantum-like” features without necessarily exactly corresponding to the standardformalism of Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, the more diﬀerent the modelconstruction can be to the usual formalism, while still reproducing manyquantum-like features, the more interesting it will be from this perspective.However, there will be an important diﬀerence between the kind of model weshall study, and the usual idea of a “toy model”. Usually, a toy model willbe a small, simpliﬁed gadget, which gives a picture of Quantum Mechanicsin some “collapsed” form, with much detail thrown away. By contrast, weare aiming for a
toy model, in which
both quantum and classical systemscan be faithfully represented
— as well as, possibly, many more exotic kindsof systems.
More precisely, we shall see how the simple, discrete notions of Chu spaces suﬃce to determine the appropriate notions of state equivalence,and to pick out the physically signiﬁcant symmetries on Hilbert space in avery striking fashion. This leads to a full and faithful representation of thecategory of quantum systems, with the groupoid structure of their physicalsymmetries, in the category of Chu spaces valued in the unit interval. Thearguments here make use of Wigner’s theorem and the dualities of projec-tive geometry, in the modern form developed by Faure and Fr¨olicher[11,34].
The surprising point is that unitarity/anitunitarity is essentially
bythe mere requirement of being a Chu morphism. This even extends to sur-2