#f6f6f6;color: #222222;font-family: sans-serif">Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma
Some very fine experiments have measured the roundness of the electron with exquisite sensitivity.1 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.”2
The experiment showed “The electron is rounder than that.”1 But this result in real operational science has disappointed advocates of the historical scientific theory of the big bang. Why?
#f6f6f6;color: #222222;font-family: sans-serif">Big bang vs particle physics
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 for 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.2
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.3 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 previous question-begging: that we arose by naturalistic means—no Creator necessary.
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.
Read the full article here
New Life Narrabri 