Search FQXi


Georgina Woodward: "Eckard, sitting still in a car I am stationary relative to the car (and the..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Georgina Woodward: "Eckard, I agree not all clocks are the same and there are many factors that..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Eckard Blumschein: "You mentioned a paper "Zeh 2010". I cannot find it in the references you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Amrit Sorli: "Time has merely the mathematical existence." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

John Martin: "Associate with senior-level computerized administrators in assembling and..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Don Foster: "We are now in the vicinity of January 11th 2019. The essay contest page..." in Defining Information

Leona Halminton: "Thank you for sharing the problem here, I can learn a lot from reading and..." in Defining Information

click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

January 17, 2019

Building a Better Black Hole
How little black holes could power starships in the future—and could have fine-tuned the laws of physics in our past.
by Scott Dodd
FQXi Awardees: Louis Crane
January 29, 2010
Bookmark and Share

Louis Crane
It’s not easy to follow a conversation about theoretical physics with Louis Crane—and he knows it. He talks of building artificial black holes to power starships and how intelligent space-faring beings from another universe could have fine-tuned the laws of our own. Oh, and he has also co-developed a theory of quantum gravity. "I really have gotten to a place where I’m out there by myself," Crane says. "It’s sort of like crossing Alaska by dogsled. The view is wonderful, but there really aren’t that many people to share it with."

Not that he doesn’t try. I recently spent a long evening on the phone with Crane, an FQXi Awardee and professor of mathematics at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Crane was trying to elaborate on the implications of the Barrett-Crane Model of loop quantum gravity, developed with fellow physicist John Barrett. To do that, he had to explain some innovative ways of doing math that I had barely even heard of. "I wish you could see my hands," Crane told me at one point. "I think you could understand it better if you could see my hands."

I doubt it, especially after receiving an e-mail from one of Crane’s early collaborators, Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. I had asked Smolin for his impressions of Crane’s recent work. Smolin replied that he had found "lots in (Crane’s) last few papers that I don’t understand technically."

So at least I’m in good company.

Defying Categorification

"Louis Crane is a mathematician by training and he tends to think and present his ideas in a very mathematical way," says physicist Christopher Isham, whose work overlaps with Crane’s, "Only a tiny fraction of theoretical physicists are familiar at all with the branches of mathematics that he uses."

It’s been that way for Crane all of his life. A mathematical prodigy who took graduate-level courses at age 14, Crane studied at the University of Chicago under Saunders Mac Lane, one of the most influential American mathematicians of the 20th century. Mac Lane cofounded of a branch of math called "category theory."

It’s sort of like crossing
Alaska by dogsled. The
view is wonderful, but
there really aren’t that
many people to share
it with.
- Louis Crane
Crane would later add his own term to the mathematical lexicon, "categorification." Like Mac Lane, Crane incorporates advanced mathematical models known as sheaves and topos theory into his calculations.

Learning category theory from one of its originators sent the young Crane off on some very unusual directions. While in high school, he set out to reconcile Mac Lane’s new mathematical concepts with theoretical physics. "I decided that I wanted to stop thinking about spacetime as a continuum," he says, then adds—and I can’t quite tell if he’s joking—"Everyone just assumed I’d get over it."

Crane was determined, though, to bridge the gap that he perceived between math and physics, so he has taken courses in both throughout his career. "Right now, I’m spending half of my time reading astrophysics and the other half thinking about category theory," he says. "Some people think I’m crazy."

A Desire for Collabor-ification

Crane’s need to find people that he can share his ideas with is one of the reasons that he applied for a grant from The Foundational Questions Institute. The $135,247 award that he has received will help him travel and collaborate in person with other physicists—something that Crane thinks is vital to his work. When he and Barrett were working on their quantum gravity model, for instance, they sent each other frustrating e-mail after e-mail. But when they got in a room together for five minutes, they figured it out quickly, Crane says. "I went to England this summer because there were two people I thought I could explain this to," he says, talking about his latest work. One was Barrett, and the other is Isham, with whom he also collaborates.

Isham acknowledges that it’s hard to judge the long-term significance of the work that he and Crane do. "If successful, (we) would have a major impact on the progression of quantum gravity studies," Isham says. "But to be honest, (we) are very much shooting in the dark. It is high-risk research!"

Despite that, Crane says he keeps pursuing his work because "it’s beautiful, and most other things are ugly." Besides, he adds, "We’re going to have to know the quantum theory of gravity if we’re ever going to build little black holes."

Sure, but, wait a minute. What was that?

Black Hole-ification

Of course, Crane continues, to do so, we’ll need armies of self-replicating space robots and focusing lasers the size of an asteroid. "I haven’t spent a lot of time on the engineering," Crane concedes. "It would be very tricky."

Just as a spectrum of colors is produced by sunlight streaming through
a prism, this image from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory shows
the spectrum of a black hole.

Credit: NASA/CfA/J.McClintock & M.Garcia
This time, his line of thinking actually isn’t so hard to follow. If we can fully understand—and ultimately control—gravity, then building tiny black holes to power starships could make sense. They would generate enormous amounts of power. "I think it’s the only thing imaginable that would actually get us to the stars," Crane says. "It’s extremely difficult to make, but I don’t think it’s impossible."

And if it is possible, then a custom-built black hole might have already been created somewhere in the past—giving rise to our own cosmos, says Crane. He cites a theory by Smolin, which suggests that our universe is only one of many, and that new universes arise within black holes. Crane reasons that long ago, intelligent beings with the ability to make artificial black holes for spaceships might have littered their universe with them. A lot of black holes could mean a lot of daughter universes—possibly including our own.

I think it’s the only
thing imaginable that
would actually get us
to the stars.
- Louis Crane on artificial black holes
As long as they were making black holes, those previous space-farers would probably have tailored them so that any daughter universe born from them would have the right kind of physics to support life as they knew it. The model may thus explain why our universe seems so peculiarly well suited for life to exist.

If all of this is true—and we’re piling up a lot of "ifs" here— then maybe, Crane says, he’s a link in the long chain that moves humanity toward fulfilling our purpose of creating more universes.

"Maybe that’s why I do it," he says. "Maybe that’s why I don’t quit."

Now that’s a concept that I have no problem understanding.

Read Louis Crane’s essay, “Stardrives and Spinoza” (pdf), which won first prize in FQXi’s essay contest 2009.

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Recent Comments

Dears Jody and Jason,

you can find the paper here:



Dear Scott, dears all,

you could be interested that, together with my colleague Herman Mosquera Cuesta, I recently found an exact solution to Einstein field equation which remove black holes singularity at the classical level, i.e. WITHOUT quantum argumentations. In our work, we have also given a new integration of the famous Oppenheimer-Volkoff Equation for the gravitational collapse.

The paper has been accepted for publication in Mod. Phys. Lett.A.

You can find the...

I would be interested as I have ideas along those lines as well. Tell me a little about it

read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.