#wrapblog

I have an interest in all things space and astronomical and had an occasion that caused me to look into one specific item associated with these lofty, pun intended, subjects. 

So it began one day while I was enjoying, if that is the right word, daytime TV. I must have been studying the inside of my eyelids for a few minutes because I found that the programme had unexpectedly changed to an American comedy called The Big Bang Theory. I admit that I found it fairly amusing so I thought I should boost my limited knowledge and look into this theory in more detail.

On reading the introduction I quickly found that the theory involves a whole bunch of complicated mathematics and is, scientifically speaking, known as the Lambda CDM model; for what it's worth even the overview was all Greek to me. Apparently, these mathematical equations and ideas are supposed to explain how the astronomer’s theory matches their real life observations. 

(See https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2013/REUPapers/Older.pdf if you feel brave enough)

At the outset I must apologise to all those knowledgeable physicians and mathematicians who must be tearing their hair out at my ramblings. However there are some aspects in all this that, to my aging mind, don't always gel or at least could have problems. So maybe, just maybe, with these issues it should be renamed The Damp Squib Theory and we should await the arrival of the greater minds of the future.

As I understand it, the current theory says that a long time ago, before I was even born, there was nothing. It was not just nothing in a massive volume of empty space but absolutely nothing at all, not even the universe that we all live in or indeed time itself. Then suddenly for no known reason there appeared what I think they term a singularity and then a bang. (Not sure how they knew it made a bang because there was no one around to hear it.  The old question along the lines of a tree falling in the woods comes to mind.)

This singularity then expanded, in a similar manner to my waistline, getting bigger and bigger until it evolved into the universe we know today. For a more informative explanation I can  refer you to:

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/what-was-before-big-bang

I know that the great minds who developed this theory should be correct in their conjectures,  but remember there were times when the greatest minds knew that the earth was flat and that the heavens rotated around it.  So from my limited understanding, when reading about the theory, it starts to raise questions as even these current crop of  great minds have had to employ a few wiggles to make the sums for their theoretical model match the realities of their observations.

If I may digress for a moment; back in my school days, maths was one subject that I quite liked although I can't claim it actually liked me back . I had a concept that I called the Variable Coefficient of Adjustment (VCA), something which I had to employ on many occasions. This useful variable for any maths question always represented the difference between the value that I arrived at from my calculations and that of the correct answer. To provide some meager assistance in resolving the issues about the big bang theory, and on behalf of the great minds, I will therefore be presenting to you the WRAP Equation that employs this useful variable.

To make their model meet observations, the current theory seems to employ not one but two variables that they refer to as dark matter and dark energy. As an aside, I discovered that the great minds themselves do not seem to have much of an idea what either of these are in reality. So, for the sake of the WRAP equation I am going to assign these as variables Vm and Ve respectively.

There is yet another little wriggle in that the great mind's observation values depend on certain assumptions. These include such things as the speed of light has been constant over the lifetime of the universe and that the strength of dark matter is consistent across the vastness of space. I read at least one, if not both, of these assumptions are subject to a degree of uncertainty. Again for the sake of the WRAP equation I am going to assign this as a variable Vo.

I should also mention at this point,  Albert Einstein whose equations must surely be at the core of the foundations underpinning this theory. I am not brave enough to suggest that there could be anything questionable about his work as, after all, he is acknowledged as having one of the greatest minds in recent times! I understand that it is even considered heresy in the scientific community to even have such thoughts. So in terms of the WRAP equations I dare not assign a further variable.

Summing that all up, to get the theoretical model to match observations you simply need to solve this equation for this new value of the VCA by starting at zero and apply the variables as follows:

VCA = O +/-Vo +/-Vm +/-Ve

So, if the relevant Nobel prize committee read this piece of nonsense,  and feel I have actually contributed,  then  I would be prepared to accept the prize for either maths or physics if it is offered. The prize money should be sent directly to Help the Aged.