This memoir by an astrophysicist won't teach you astrophysics (thank goodness) but it is a fascinating look into the secret lives of astrophysicists over the last half century. What do astronomers actually do? How do they observe the night sky? What instruments do they use, and what kinds of things can they learn about objects in space so very, very far away from us?
I've always been fascinated by the idea of astronomy, although my maths is nowhere near sufficient to do more than pick out some of the constellations and celestial features visible from my back yard with a pair of binoculars. This was a great entry level introduction to modern observational astronomy for laypeople. Some of the details are mind-blowing - the way invisible light spectra can be mapped to tell us what elements are present on stars millions of light-years away from us, or the fact that multiple ridiculous truths about the universe have been predicted by astrophysicists using nothing more than maths, and then proven after building ridiculously sensitive instruments to detect them.
The further I got into this book, the more I had to marvel that so many people have devoted so much of their lives and so much research money to an area of knowledge with, honestly, so little practical effect on the world around us. Astronomy was deeply practical in medieval times when the sky was every man's clock, telling him everything from when to plant his barley to what minute of the day it was - but what good does it do us, in an age of nuclear power, climate change, and cancer research, to detect supernovas, gravitational waves, or merging neutron stars in galaxies so far away from us that we couldn't travel to them even if we wanted to? The whole time I was reading the book I could hear the scoffing voices in my head from people I've known who likewise scoffed at me for reading and writing fantasy fiction, on the basis of a kind of religiously baptised utilitarianism. "What use is that? God wants us to spend our time doing REAL work." After spending large chunks of my life in the company of people who viewed any form of art with disdain, it was actually pretty wild to realise that here was a whole area of science that they would probably also scoff at.
Which got me thinking about how in astronomy, the border between art and science and theology blurs together. The stars cannot be exploited or profited from, despite various (astrological) attempts to do so. They can only be observed, the way that art is observed. Humanity has always studied the stars, because the stars are beautiful, because we love them, and because that love calls us to observe and marvel at them. This is the way that the Bible actually talks about the stars - not just as utilitarian signs to mark the seasons, but as works of God that are studied by all who delight in them: artworks, that provoke us to contemplation of the divine:
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Levesque, who is moved to awe and wonder, to delight and gratitude by the vision of the night sky as much as any human being, attempts to justify her profession in the book's final pages. But unfortunately for her, she grew up on a reading diet of Carl Sagan and thus is deprived of the conceptual framework to do so. She struggles gamely, offering standard utilitarian explanations that fall ridiculously short of the funding and skills necessary for her academic discipline: technological advancements in building the necessary instruments may be useful in other areas, or the science of the night sky may be some young scholar's entry point into some other, more practically useful, branch of science. In terms of personal motivation - well, of course one can't expect a theological motive from those who don't believe in a God, but even more glaring is her inability to conceive of the universe in any artistic terms. To be sure, she uses metaphors to do with love and beauty. And, she struggles to articulate a concept which I instantly recognise as the old, religiously-tinged "vocation". Astronomers become astronomers because, in looking at the night sky, they recognise beauty, fall in love, and develop a vocation. But Levesque has neither the conceptual basis, nor the vocabulary to capture her love of this beauty and the vocation it inspires. In the end, she can only admit defeat:
Why do we study the universe? Why do we look at the sky and ask questions, build telescopes, travel to the very limits of our planet to answer them? Why do we stargaze?
We don’t know exactly why, but we must.
I learned a lot from this book about the night skies, and the people who study them, and I'd recommend it to anyone equally interested. But I wish that we could recover a more integrated worldview. In working so hard to strip itself of any artistic or religious motivation, I can't help feeling that modern science has impoverished itself.