Pedro Lilienfeld

In Chapter 9 of my autobiography I mentioned my teenage involvement with two then extant and competing theories about the universe: the steady state theory, advocated principally by the British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, and the then newly minted, and eventually, triumphant Big Bang theory. At the end of that discussion I stated: “Much more about this subject further on”. I failed to do so, however. Let me pick up this matter here, then. My interest in the weighty subject of the origin, nature, structure and fate of the Universe has occupied my attention especially during the last decades of my life. In addition, and more recently, I have also been interested in the sub-field of extraterrestrial life.

These interests have led me to teach a class entitled Introductory Astronomy within the framework of the Lexington Community Education (LCE), starting around 2012. This teaching involvement had an amusing start. I had received the quarterly catalog of courses presented by LCE and as I was perusing it, I came across the offer of a class in, believe or not,…Astrology! My scientific hair stood on end, especially after reading the course description that claimed to provide spiritual guidance and support. I fired off an irate email to the LCE director, Craig Hall, arguing that the inclusion of such a course was unworthy of the intellectual caliber of the people of Lexington and surrounding communities. Some lame excuses were proffered as response, and Craig eventually proposed that I teach a class in Astronomy within LCE. After pondering the idea I accepted, and I have enjoyed that task which I engage in, typically, twice a year. I endeavor to update the electronic slides on a regular basis, given the rapid progress of that exiting field.

On the subject of extraterrestrial life, especially “intelligent” life, During the enforced seclusion of the Covid-19 pandemic, I have written a 44-page essay, updated in 2021, with the title: Where Are They? Are We Alone? it has been well received by those who have bothered reading it in its entirety. My conclusion is that we, as a technological communicating civilization, are probably alone at least within our Milky Way galaxy, and that we can not rule out the possibility that we are alone within our Universe. More on this subject in Essay No. 22 that follows.

And that introduces the concept of “our Universe” as part of a Multiverse, an idea that has been gaining acceptance by the scientific community over the last few decades. It also agrees with my own, perhaps “philosophical”, preference. At least 30 years ago I began to espouse – or at least toy with – the idea of an infinitude of hierarchies, i.e., the concept of a limitless “Ultra Universe” of “nesting” realms in both dimensional directions, the ultra microscopic (i.e., subnuclear) and the ultra macroscopic (i.e., universes within multiverses). Assuming that the Big Bang, with whatever initial processes (inflation, etc.) actually took place, as it seems to be the case, I for one, can not accept the idea that there was a “time zero” for all of what exists. To me, space-time has always existed but with differing “incarnations”, i.e. an infinitude of universes. Whether there is such infinitude of universes in time or in space, in other words, universes that follow each other or universes that coexist (or both) may well be unknowable and remain forever in the realm of speculation.

As to the fate of our Universe, the only universe we know about, that is another unanswerable question, at least for the foreseeable future. Again, my “philosophical” preference is for a cyclic universe, one that expands and then collapses, but an open ended, gradually “evaporating” one I can accept, as an alternative. I believe that eventually we will have answers to these questions, if not all.

I do recognize that my speculations about the multiverse, infinite nesting hierarchies, infinite time and space are simply philosophically comfortable to me. These ideas therefore fall into the intellectually fraught category of what the preeminent physicist Steven Weinberg characterized as “ought to be”, as opposed to “what is”. Such preconceptions governed the ideology of the Aristotelians and of medieval scholars.