Lee Smolin describes Janna Levin as one of the most talented and original of the young cosmologists. And she鈥檚 just written a book that proves it. In How the Universe Got Its Spots Levin not only tours the wilder reaches of cosmology, but she also bares her soul with an intimate account of her struggles to balance science against the demands of the heart. Lots of people face similar juggling acts, but it鈥檚 rare to find such an open account. Beginning as a series of letters written to her mother, the book mutated into a running diary of her life in the fast lane of chaos, black holes and quantum gravity, things that leaves her wired up, heart pounding. So just how does a theoretical cosmologist at Cambridge juggle a life with a maniac musician from Manchester and have time to sort out the size of the Universe? Stephen Battersby asked her about her ideas, her prejudices, and her morbid curiosities-and just why did she leave sunny California for rainy London?
Why write a book that is so candid and personal? Why not stick to the science?
It鈥檚 a tough question. I had just written yet another set of academic papers and finished a mountain of academic work. I felt that there was something I wasn鈥檛 saying-and the tone of my voice was changing. My natural delivery was becoming like that of a weary academic delivering instruction to the masses. I wanted to do something that felt honest and sincere, which wasn鈥檛 about pressing a scientific premise. For instance, even if the idea that the Universe is finite were proved wrong I would still think that the book had been worth writing. It is about the process of investigation, and how alienating that investigation can be sometimes.
Advertisement
You describe a tense relationship with your boyfriend, Warren that ends with a break-up. He鈥檚 not an academic, but an unemployed musician; he follows you from university to university to cook, clean and do the laundry. Did this feeling of inequality contribute to your break-up?
I suppose it must have seemed that Warren and I had nothing in common except for a sense of humour. But musicians and mathematicians are supposed to have a lot in common, their disciplines are often complementary. We did have a lot in common. We do. I think the break-up was less to do with the inequality than with the pressures of academic life. I have been involved with other academics-and still found work dictating and contorting my personal life. Every academic who鈥檚 been through a post-doc will talk about the enormous pressures on their personal life, and many relationships fail as a result.
By the way, we鈥檙e back together.
You don鈥檛 dwell on gender issues in the book 鈥
I鈥檓 so glad you said that. I don鈥檛 think I do either!
鈥 but when you tell the story of the discovery of pulsars by Jocelyn Bell Burnell, your account is pointed. You say that although she discovered pulsars, her supervisor Anthony Hewish won the Nobel Prize.
Well, I鈥檓 not a historian of science, so it鈥檚 possible I鈥檓 being unfair to him. I did write, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 not fair to Hewish either鈥 but it seems that somewhere along the way that was edited out of the book. I am sorry about that. But that鈥檚 how the story is told: she discovered pulsars, he got the Nobel Prize. He certainly deserves his credit too.
Could anything like that happen now?
I hope not. I鈥檓 not saying things are perfect, but I hope I鈥檓 not being optimistic when I believe that times have changed.
How about smaller injustices: supervisors taking advantage of their position to claim results?
Yeah, absolutely, that goes on. And sometimes even competitors claim results. It can be shocking. I certainly see these things happening. But it鈥檚 not just gender based. I鈥檝e seen it happen to guys, too. As they say, the battles are so bitter and the stakes are so low. But can I add that I have also seen the opposite-incredibly talented, generous people demonstrating loyalty and integrity. They鈥檙e the only ones I pay attention to anymore.
When you do touch explicitly on gender issues in the book, you add that you don鈥檛 ever talk about that any more. Why not?
It鈥檚 hard for me to talk about the issue of women in science because I get cornered there. I become a cardboard cut-out onto which a lot of opinions-good and bad-are projected. So I鈥檝e almost taken a vow of silence on the gender issue.
But in a field where only a few senior academics are women, don鈥檛 you feel that you have a duty to talk about sexual discrimination?
I think the best thing for both men and women in science is just to see other people who are getting on with their work, enjoying what they鈥檙e doing and not complaining too much. I鈥檝e had a lot of privileges. As an American, I come from a prosperous country where there is money for people to do research in science, and I come from a family that wanted to send me to university. A lot of people don鈥檛 even have those basic chances. It seems extremely petty to turn around and point to the few doors that are slammed in your face when the world itself is open to you.
You鈥檝e taken those chances and gone exceptionally far. How do you feel to be picked out as one of the brightest young cosmologists in the world?
Embarrassed. Honoured. Do you know that quote, 鈥淒on鈥檛 be so humble. You鈥檙e not that great.鈥 I just stole that from a journalist who was quoting Golda Meir.
Why do you believe so strongly that the Universe is finite?
Well, it鈥檚 not that we have direct evidence for a finite Universe. There are theoretical reasons. An infinite Universe seems to me untenable. First of all, we have never observed infinity in nature. Whenever you have infinities in a theory, that鈥檚 where the theory fails as a description of nature. And if space was born in the big bang and yet is infinite now, we are forced to believe that it鈥檚 instantaneously, infinitely big. It seems absurd. Not impossible, but absurd.
An infinite Universe leads to an infinite number of possibilities within that infinite Universe. There would be an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of solar systems and an infinite number of planets that look just like the Earth. On one of those, there are people sitting in New Scientist having a conversation just like this, except maybe on that planet I鈥檓 blonde and you鈥檙e brunette.
So how could the Universe be finite, and how do we find out?
The entire 3D space could be compact and edgeless, like a generalisation of the Earth鈥檚 surface. The Earth isn鈥檛 an infinite sheet that carries on forever, but it doesn鈥檛 have an edge either. It鈥檚 compact and connected. If you walked in a straight line out of London you鈥檇 eventually cross the entire Earth to come back to where you started. 3D space could be similar. If you left the Earth in a rocket and flew in a straight line you might find the Earth approaching again in front of you. The space would be finite and edgeless. Very very difficult to visualise in 3D, but that鈥檚 why maths is so powerful. The way we actually search for evidence of a finite cosmos is to look for patterns in the hot and cold patches left over from the big bang. A pattern from the shape of space is imprinted like birthmarks in these spots. It turns out to be mathematically similar to how the leopard got its spots.
This seems to be quite radical stuff. Do you think other cosmologists are too conservative by comparison?
Yes, and no. Quantitative and definitive results do form the bulk of astronomical knowledge; measurements of the temperatures of stars, determinations of their masses-concrete observations. This isn鈥檛 a bad kind of conservatism but a solid backbone for the science. Still, for the livelihood of the field, for the longevity of the field, cosmology has to support the 1 per cent that have moved beyond what we already know. And that鈥檚 an appropriate ratio. We need radicals and conservatives.
Why is it that you find yourself working in Britain, which you describe as a place of dirty bedsits, limp vegetables and grey weather?
There are charms in this country. There鈥檚 a lot of energy, a lot of mix between cultures and I relish the sense that art and science are both cherished as complementary aspects of culture. I鈥檓 not saying I like the weather.
Is that different from the attitude in the US?
I think that there鈥檚 a very low level of pretension here-there鈥檚 not a whole lot of posturing. I like that. Also the English tradition of politeness can engender a positive environment. I benefit from this courteousness even though I can be quite the brash American.
The comical grimness of Britain comes along with a darker thread in the book, a theme of madness. Why does madness, especially in the brilliant, fascinate you?
Well, I don鈥檛 think that insanity is a requirement for brilliance. But the greatest minds sometimes fall outside of society and propriety. I don鈥檛 even know why I find it so engaging, but I guess it鈥檚 also the frailty of human beings in the face of great discoveries. I find that touching. These people are fragile in the face of greatness.
It鈥檚 not something you鈥檙e afraid of?
Am I afraid I鈥檒l go mad? No. I have my ups and downs and maybe it鈥檚 difficult to move in an unconventional environment, wedging myself with a crowbar into communities that are so different, but I don鈥檛 think I鈥檒l need locking up anytime soon.
Are you hopeful about finding evidence that the Universe is finite, perhaps with the MAP satellite?
I鈥檓 not hopeful at all. I expect that the Universe is too big to ever see around. But the shape of the Universe is still part of a really important puzzle, namely, what is the fundamental theory of gravity beyond Einstein鈥檚? For instance, string theory suggests there may be more than 3 spatial dimensions. These extra dimensions are probably finite. So if the Universe began in something like a big bang with 10 dimensions shouldn鈥檛 they all be born of comparable size? Then all we have to figure out is why 3 became the vast cosmos we observe while the other six remained so compact that we don鈥檛 even know that they exist. Maybe by searching for these small extra dimensions we鈥檒l learn something about the large 3D Universe and about fundamental physics. So even if we can鈥檛 see the shape of space directly, we might still see the shape very indirectly.
What next?
I鈥檝e stopped working on the finite Universe, I鈥檝e been more concerned with black holes lately so I鈥檇 probably get back to it, working on the shape of the Universe. Not only would we have located ourselves in the cosmos, but we鈥檇 also have a data point that all gravity theories would have to match. They would have to be able to predict this shape for the Universe, or they would fail as a theory. That鈥檚 tremendous, we鈥檇 be seeing in some sense the first direct observational result from quantum gravity.
And you鈥檇 make plans to collect your Nobel, presumably?
Lots of other people have worked in this field, so they鈥檒l be in line first. Maybe we should share it, share it among twenty of us 鈥