The article, “A New Measurement Approaches Perfection” in Quantam Magazine, April 10th, 2023 by Z. Savitsky, demonstrates the electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles: If the electron’s charge wasn’t perfectly round, it could reveal the existence of hidden particles.

The experiment measured the roundness of the electron with exquisite sensitivity. For comparison, “if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.” The experiment showed “The electron is rounder than that.” But this result in real operational science has disappointed advocates of the historical scientific theory of the big bang. Why? The big bang is the leading naturalistic cosmogony (Greek: ‘birth of the universe’). It basically states that energy appeared from nothing and turned into matter, as per Einstein’s most famous formula, E = mc2. However, The Standard Model of particle physics, among the best-attested theories in all science, throws up severe problems. In particular, any conversion of energy into matter must produce an equal amount of antimatter. Antimatter comprises antiparticles of the same mass but opposite charge (if the particle is charged) and magnetic moment as the corresponding matter particle. When an antiparticle meets its corresponding particle, both are quickly annihilated with a huge release of energy, again as per E = mc2. That is antielectron (positron) with electron, antiproton with proton, antineutron with neutron, etc.

The problem with the big bang is that the universe comprises overwhelmingly matter, with hardly any antimatter except for fleeting moments. As the article says: For one thing, our mere existence is proof that the Standard Model is incomplete since, according to the theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter that would have annihilated each other.

How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. But notice the logical fallacy known as begging the question (Latin: petition principii)! That is any argument where the conclusion to be proved is presupposed (‘begged’) in one of the premises. In particular, although real operational science overwhelmingly supports the Standard Model, there must be something wrong with it because it means that the Big Bang would not work. How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. This question-begging arises from the previous question-begging: that we arose by naturalistic means—no Creator necessary.

Leading evolutionary geneticist, Professor Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Because of this question-begging a priori commitment to naturalism (only ‘nature’ exists), evolutionary cosmologists have been trying to find loopholes in the Standard Model. In particular, any asymmetry that could explain why much more matter than antimatter was produced in the big bang.

Even with the incredible sensitivity of the latest experiments, the “result is consistent with zero and improves on the previous best upper bound by a factor ∼2.4.”¹ This is great support for the Standard Model but a serious problem for the big bang. As stated at the beginning of the article, the experiments have not found any deviation from a perfectly spherical electron, despite unparalleled experimental precision.

Also, trying to find tinier and tinier deviations from a sphere is equivalent to looking for particles at higher and higher energy scales. In turn, this is equivalent to looking for more and more massive particles beyond the Standard Model. This experiment is so sensitive that it’s equivalent to energies above 10¹³ eV (electron volts). This is over ten times the energy the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can currently generate.

There is no question that this is excellent science: both great ingenuity and careful checking and cross-checking of data. The results back up an extremely well-supported and useful theory of particle physics. However, those committed to the big bang, regardless of real particle physics, continue to be disappointed. The best solution is: to stick to real science and abandon the naturalistic faith that demands the big bang.

Article by Jonathan Sarfati Electron is perfectly spherical – Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma: www.creation.com