Big Toy Models: Representing Physical Systems As Chu Spaces (Samson Abramsky):

We pursue a model-oriented rather than axiomatic approach to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, with the idea that new models can often suggest new axioms. This approach has often been fruitful in Logic and Theoretical Computer Science. Rather than seeking to construct a simplified toy model, we aim for a `big toy model’, in which both quantum and classical systems can be faithfully represented – as well as, possibly, more exotic kinds of systems.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2393

My sentiments exactly! See my website.
Thank you for a wonderful article which may take a little time to absorb

Why is Quantum Theory paradoxical?
==============..
The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is a very
strange theory. Because when we are talking about mechanics
it means that we can imagine and see this process visual.
But the QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture
in one’s mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical
formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize.
It simple gives the right answers to the most complicated
theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99%
of physicists. But there are few physicists who don’t agree
with this situation. They want to understand QT without paradoxes.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
” Nobody pays attention on geometrical form of particle”.
===============..
Now the physicists follow ” pure ” mathematicians.
” Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.”-
– said Richard Feynman.
There is difference between the ” pure” mathematics
and the mathematics of theoretical physics.
” Pure” mathematics is infinite and the mathematics
of theoretical physics is limited by nature laws.
The ” pure ” mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, with real particle.
And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are ” mathematical point”,
2.
In QT particles are ” mathematical point”,
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the ” mathematical point”,
cannot be a firm ” mathematical point” .
It means it is a ” elastic point”,
which can change its form. (??!!).
4.
When this ” mathematical elastic point ” fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a ” mathematical point” fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. (??!!).
6.
The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum
in physics is also a ” mathematical point”.
7.
Then one a ” mathematical point” /particle/ interact
with another a ” mathematical point” / power, impulse /
the physicists say: ” The micro-world is paradoxical.”
8.
If physicist think about particle as a ” mathematical point”
the result can be only paradoxical.
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
========..
P.S.
Italy. Railway station.
It was more then two hours till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened a
case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain something
about a bow , carefully and gently touching it. Then another man
took this bow and also enthusiastically continued this conversation.
For half an hour the bow was passed from one hands to another
following with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level! What a beauty!
=======================..
And now let’s imagine the bow pressed into a “mathematical point”
and the musicians speak seriously about a ” mathematical point ”
which must produce a sound from a violin. Everybody will say I
describe an idiotic situation. Well, I agree.
But why don’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe the
elementary particle as a ” mathematical point ” , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
==========..
P.S.
When Feynman said ” I think I can safely say that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. ” …( and SRT and GRT too) it was only because
nobody took into consideration the geometrical form of particles.
There isn’t Physics without particles.
There aren’t particles without geometrical forms.
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .