My derivation of an alternate form of Einstein’s theory of special relativity expanded my intuition to where I could grasp both how theoretical spaces curve in non-Euclidean geometries, and also, how physical spacetime curves in Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This trigonometric reformulation also proved to be a fertile ground for new, if unorthodox, cosmological hypotheses.

One of its implications was that the same 90° curvature of the spacetime exists from immediately beyond the gravity well of any black hole to its event horizon, as well as between any at rest reference frame in our expanding observable universe to its outer boundary.

This formulation also suggests that from any at rest reference frame within a given observable universe, all adjacent observable universes in the same physical universe, governed by special relativity, are composed primarily of antimatter residing on the other side of its light speed receding—and therefore unreachable—boundary. Consequently, within any such physical universe, from each reference frame beyond a given expanding observable universe, it manifests unobservably as a contracting black hole.

Additionally, in this context, the present reference frame of any phenomenon identifiable as displacing at light speed through the space of our observable universe without any physical interactions (e.g., a photon that is not experienced by any observer of its source) actually resides within the speed of light boundary separating our observable universe from the adjacent observable universe in its direction of motion, on the other side of the completely length contracted intervening space.

Explaining how these new cosmological insights are logically consistent with my trigonometric reformulation is beyond the scope of this post, and so is left as an exercise for the scientifically curious reader.

Having derived this new formulation—and a number of contingent hypotheses—as a college undergrad, you might wonder why I never pursued an advanced degree in physics. I can assure you that the thought did cross my mind, but several factors converged to dissuade me.

First off, Bell Telephone Laboratories was financing my undergraduate study toward a degree in engineering. While hypothetically, I could have made a case to them that my physics PhD would have been consistent with their intentions—two Bell Labs employees were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics—I eventually concluded that pursuing it would likely not have taken me where I ultimately aspired to go.

My journey to that conclusion started when I began researching what I had to do to go from being an engineering undergrad to a physics graduate student. I had already taken much of the requisite math. I would obviously have to take more undergraduate physics courses, but given my natural aptitude for the subject, that would not have been a deterrent.

What brought me up short was the unexpectedly “recommended” physics graduate school requirement to be able to read German. I encountered this requirement at the first two “Institutes of Technology” I researched. The justification was that it would allow the student to read seminal papers of esteemed German physicists in their original language. To me, this requirement represented an implicit perpetuation of white supremacy, in that it suggested I could not truly understand physics unless I could think like a German.

While I typically take pleasure in defying this self-destructive social convention, finding it in the field I was seriously considering entering gave me pause. Consequently, prior to making this potentially life-changing commitment, I decided to analyze my underlying assumption that there are no rational constraints upon the explanatory scope of science that could possibly limit its pursuit of objective answers to our fundamental existential questions.

This analysis brought me to the realization that the applied mathematics that provided science with its explanatory power also limited that power to the domain of measurable phenomena. It also informed me that the existential answers I sought extended beyond that domain.

The figurative deathblow to my intention to pursue a physics PhD landed when I noticed the persistence of what science claimed was its transient inability to answer our fundamental existential questions. This persistence brought me to the realization that, despite the propaganda implying limitless explanatory power, thought leaders of the scientific practice are well aware of its metaphysical limits.

This awareness is evidenced by the fact that the foundational focus in physics—both then and now—is the pursuit of the so-called “Theory of Everything”, whose ultimate goal is the unification of the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. My disappointment with the limited scope of this goal clarified the fact that to reach my personal goal of A Concise Theory of Truly Everything, I would need knowledge beyond the scope of science. Accordingly, I concluded that what I might have gained from acquiring a doctoral degree in physics was not worth the risk of possibly being indoctrinated into downgrading my ultimate goal to that of the field I would have entered.