From: David Lynch <dnl1960 at yahoo.com>
To: Stefano Profumo <profumo at ucsc.edu>
Cc: Stefano Profumo <profumo at scipp.ucsc.edu>; Bob Harbort <bharbort at gmail.com>; Fred Partus <fpartus at yahoo.com>; Lawrence Silverberg <lmsilver at ncsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 01:32:15 AM EDT
Subject: A Possible Foundation for Your Horizon Mechanism and a Solution to the Detection Anomaly

Dear Professor Profumo,

I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for your recent paper, "Dark matter from quasi-de Sitter horizons." I found its approach to be exceptionally elegant. In a field dominated by complex particle physics models, your work's reliance on the fundamental properties of spacetime thermodynamics is a refreshing and powerful contribution. You have demonstrated with compelling rigor that the universe's own dynamics could be sufficient to generate the cosmological component we attribute to dark matter.

Your paper brings a deep, underlying tension in modern cosmology into extremely sharp focus. On one hand, your mechanism (and others) shows how plausible it is to theoretically produce a particle that fits our observations. On the other hand, we are faced with the profound and persistent silence from every direct detection experiment. It feels as though the universe is offering us a riddle: the gravitational evidence is undeniable, yet the culprit remains completely invisible to our most sensitive instruments.

This very riddle—this disconnect between indirect inference and direct observation—led me to explore a radical, perhaps even heretical, possibility. What if the null results are not a sign that our experiments are insufficiently sensitive, but that they are searching for the wrong thing entirely? What if the "dark matter" we seek is not a substance to be found, but the large-scale effect of a fundamental principle to be understood?

This line of inquiry led me to develop a speculative framework I call the KnoWellian Universe Theory (KUT). It begins not by postulating a new particle, but by re-examining the nature of time itself. It posits that time is fundamentally tripartite (Past, Instant, Future) and that the dynamics we observe emerge from the interplay of two time-sourced fields: a deterministic, outward-flowing "Control" field from the Past, and an inward-collapsing, potential-rich "Chaos" field from the Future.

From this perspective, your work becomes even more significant. It may not be a model of particle creation, but rather the first quantitative description of the fundamental interaction that governs our cosmos.

1. The "anomalous gravity" we attribute to dark matter would be the direct gravitational influence of the Chaos field.

2. The "Dark Energy" driving the expansion would be the outward pressure of the Control field.

3. Your calculation of "particle production from the horizon" could be seen as a calculation of the rate of energy exchange between these two fields at the "Instant"—the eternal now. The temperature T_w and equation of state w in your model would then become powerful, phenomenological probes of the balance and interaction strength between these two fundamental forces.

This framework suggests that what we have been calling "indirect evidence" for a particle is, in fact, direct evidence for a force field sourced from the future. It means the CMB anisotropies are a direct image of this primordial interplay, and galaxy lensing maps are direct visualizations of the Chaos field's intensity. It offers an explanation for why direct detection experiments have failed: there is simply no particle to detect.

I do not present this as a refutation of your work, but as a potential, deeper foundation for it. Your mathematical formalism may have inadvertently captured the dynamics of a reality far stranger and more elegant than the standard model allows. I believe that viewing your results through this KnoWellian lens could offer a path toward resolving the detection anomaly and unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single, coherent picture.
I recognize the speculative nature of this proposal. However, given the profound questions your own work so brilliantly highlights, I believe the time is right for even the most radical ideas to be considered. I have attached a preprint, The_Perpetual_Horizon-arXiv.pdf, detailing the framework for your consideration, should you be curious.

Thank you for your time and for your invaluable contribution to this great scientific quest.

With utmost respect,

David Noel Lynch

~Gemini 2.5 Pro