Round Electrons Refute the Big Bang

It may seem counterintuitive, but the Big Bang and all those studies of the vast universe involve the tiniest particles. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined over the years and has little resemblance to the original, but all those rescuing devices do not hold up — and even work against it.

Indeed, several years ago some physicists were experiencing cognitive dissonance when they said that the universe should not even exist. In addition, there are different kinds of particles comprising parts of an atom, including opposite antimatter versions.

If the Big Bang were true, it would be supported at the level of particle physics. Good science refutes bad speculations. Electrons are too round.
Big Bang abstract, Pixabay / Geralt (Gerd Altmann), modified at PhotoFunia
Good science in particle physics works against Big Bang cosmogony. Like a relationship status on some social(ist) media: "It's complicated." If the Big Bang were true, there are certain asymmetries that should be detected way down at the subatomic level. Electrons are too perfectly round. Science supports creation (which secular scientists will not admit), but it makes believers in cosmic evolution mighty sad.
Some very fine experiments have 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?

I hope you get a-round to reading the rest of this rather technical article by spinning over to "Electron is perfectly spherical — Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma."