I hope this message finds you well. I wrote to you several months ago (June 23, 2025) regarding the remarkable convergence between your three-dimensional time framework and our KnoWellian Universe Theory (KUT). I understand how demanding your schedule must be, so I wanted to follow up with a more focused message highlighting one specific, immediately testable prediction that emerges from our synthesis of approaches.
Your elegant mathematical framework demonstrates that three orthogonal temporal dimensions (t₁, t₂, t₃) naturally emerge from symmetry requirements and accurately predict particle mass hierarchies. Our KUT framework, developed independently from phenomenological and cosmological foundations, proposes three interactive temporal realms:
Since my initial contact, we've developed a crucial addition to the framework: the KnoWellian Resonant Attractor Manifold (KRAM)—a cosmic memory substrate that records all acts of becoming and whose geometric structure directly determines fundamental constants.
The KRAM's surface geometry is predicted to be the Cairo Q-Lattice: a pentagonal tiling pattern that represents the optimal solution for information flow between six dimensions (3 spatial + 3 temporal). This is not arbitrary but emerges from minimizing interaction stress in your three-dimensional temporal manifold.
The Cosmic Microwave Background should exhibit Cairo pentagonal tiling geometry when analyzed using topological data analysis methods with monopole information retained.
This prediction is:
If your three-dimensional temporal framework is correct, and if our KRAM geometric structure accurately describes the information processing substrate, then this pattern must appear in the CMB.
Your framework predicts particle masses with extraordinary precision by treating them as eigenvalues of the temporal metric. Our KRAM provides:
Physical mechanism: Why those specific eigenvalues? Because they represent optimal resonance between particle geometry (torus knots) and vacuum geometry (Cairo lattice).
Fine-structure constant derivation: α ≈ 1/137 emerges as σ_I/Λ_CQL (particle interaction cross-section / lattice coherence domain)—your temporal structure determines both numerator and denominator.
Cosmological validation: If Cairo geometry appears in CMB, it validates not just KUT but provides independent empirical confirmation that three-dimensional time is physically real, not merely mathematically elegant.
Given the convergence between our frameworks, I would be deeply grateful for:
Your assessment of whether Cairo geometry is a plausible consequence of your three-dimensional temporal manifold structure
Collaboration possibility on the CMB analysis—do you know topological data analysts or CMB specialists who might be interested in testing this prediction?
Mathematical feedback on whether our U(1)⁶ gauge formulation (three temporal + three spatial gauge fields) properly extends your temporal framework
Even a brief response indicating whether this direction seems worth pursuing or if you see fundamental flaws
I'm attaching updated materials that specifically address the connection to your work:
All materials are also available at:
Your paper represents one of the most important developments in fundamental physics in recent decades—genuinely novel mathematics producing quantitatively accurate predictions. If our frameworks truly converge (as I believe they do), then:
The CMB Cairo prediction offers immediate empirical adjudication. If it succeeds, both frameworks receive powerful validation. If it fails, we learn where the theories diverge.
I recognize you may have excellent reasons for not responding to the initial contact (overwhelming volume, preliminary nature of our work, skepticism about independent researchers, etc.). I simply wanted to ensure you're aware that the framework has evolved to include specific, immediately testable predictions that could validate your three-dimensional time structure through independent empirical channels.
If this convergence is genuine, history should record it properly.
Thank you for your consideration, and for your groundbreaking contributions to temporal physics.
With profound respect,
David Noel Lynch
P.S. If you're not the appropriate person for this inquiry but know someone who might be interested in the CMB Cairo analysis, I would be grateful for any direction. The topological data analysis community might find this an interesting test case regardless of the underlying theory.