SPACE.com: 'Turn Right at Orion' reads like a mariner's log or a sailor's personal diary, how did you come up with the idea to approach cosmology in such a fashion?
Mitchell Begelman:
Although my research involves a lot of mathematics, I have always had a very visual "feel" for the objects I study. This probably dates back to my days as an amateur astronomer, before and during high school. I'm one of the few astrophysicists I know who has actually seen all the Messier objects through a 6-inch telescope! At first I was planning to write a collection of disconnected essays describing famous objects "close-up", but gradually I realized that the visits could be connected into a travel adventure. This allowed me to explore the common themes that connect such seemingly disparate objects as black holes and newly-forming solar systems.
Do you prefer science fiction or nonfiction reading?
I almost never read science fiction. Occasionally I read popular science books -- usually in fields other than astronomy -- but mostly I read straight fiction. To prepare for writing "Turn Right at Orion" I read some travel literature, including books by Paul Theroux and Bill Bryson.
Who are your heroes and what impact has their work had on you and your career?
As an undergraduate physics major at Harvard, I was particularly inspired by Prof. Ed Purcell. He taught a course called "Widely Applied Physics", which was all about problem-solving without the use of computers or (in those days) even a sliderule. He showed me what a powerful tool physics is for addressing real-world problems. Martin Rees -- my Ph.D. thesis advisor and frequent collaborator over the years -- inspired me to extend this view to the entire universe. Martin has an unparalleled ability to extract the essential physical relationships from complex astrophysical systems. But it must be added that his approach is easier to aspire to than to emulate successfully!
The destinations in "Orion", are they places that you would like to visit?
Some more than others. My personal preferences are probably reflected in the emotional reactions I ascribe to my fictional traveller. Some places would be quite scary or bleak, and some would simply never afford you a good view. But I can't help thinking it would be exhilarating to outrun a supernova explosion, or to surf the turbulence of the jet emanating from a supermassive black hole. I would also love to visit the Orion Nebula --- that's why my traveler spends nearly a quarter of the book there.
What most upsets you about how astronomy and space science is presented to the public?
Astronomers and space scientists are lucky that planetary probes and instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope produce spectacular images. So it is relatively easy to communicate the excitement of new discoveries to the public, via the media. I'm sometimes dismayed when new results are sensationalized -- presented as major breakthroughs when they are really incremental advances -- but this is the exception rather than the rule.
What is the most beautiful aspect to space exploration?
It is that we have been able to learn so much about such remote and exotic places. Ten years ago, no one predicted that we would have discovered dozens of extrasolar planets by now. It is highly likely that we will have strong evidence (one way or the other) regarding life outside the Solar System within the next couple of decades. And who would have thought that we would have to regard black holes as common components of the universe, as "normal" as any star?
If you controlled a $1 billion foundation, what research effort would you fund?
I think I would focus on the "grass roots" --- funding young scientists who have very bright ideas. The government funding agencies do a reasonable job of supporting established researchers, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for young scientists to "break in". Also, there is quite a bit of conservatism built into the funding agencies, that make it hard for people to try new approaches to problems. If I had to choose an area to focus on, I would choose astrobiology.
Why should we spend money on space exploration over research into deadly diseases?
We have to do both. Obviously, we have to give a higher priority (and comparably higher funding) to medical research --- and we do. But our quest for understanding the universe is one of the hallmarks of civilization. This is manifest in the worldwide press interest whenever a new discovery -- a new solar system or some discovery about black holes -- is announced. If we voluntarily stopped exploring I think people would feel that we had lost something important. Sometimes, very basic research leads to technological advances, such as medical tomography (an offshoot of astronomy research). But I think the most concrete benefit of space exploration is its ability to inspire young people to study science.
What is the most vexing question in modern science?
There are many, including the nature of consciousness, whether there are multiple universes and/or extra dimensions, and whether life is common on other planets. A specific question that is particularly vexing right now is: Is the expansion of the universe really accelerating -- as evidence seems to show -- and, if so, why? Until this is solved all bets are off about where we came from and where we're going.
