>But that's not a fair representation of the scientific position, is it? Don't cosmologists theorise about how elementary particles came to be, not least to try to explain why there's more matter (including electrons) than anti-matter?

First off, all Physicists are good people! Let's get that out of the way first. I'm not trying to say anything bad about them (I like Physicists and we wouldn't have the inventions that make the 20th and 21st Centuries the 20th and 21st Centuries -- without them! So a huge debt of gratitude is owed to the Physics community!).

But you see, what I'm saying is this:

We could call an 'electron' by any number of a thousand other names, some simpler 'unit of electricity', some more far-fetched 'unit of electrostatic pressure/density/force/change, etc.' and some utterly ridiculous 'pixies', 'faeries', 'little elves', etc. -- and all of our electrical circuits and electronic devices WILL STILL WORK, regardless of the name we use around it!

'Electrons' in the academic subject of Physics -- are not unlike 'Widgets' in Economics!

What is a 'widget' you may ask?

Widgets do not exist! But they do exist conceptually, because they serve to act as a convenient placeholder for relations to other economic concepts, and inside the scope (again as a placeholder) in economic equations!

You might compare these concepts to the variable 'X' in Mathematics.

What is X?

Well, X typically serves as a placeholder for the answer to the equation in question if it is placed on the left hand side of the equation!

But does X have any meaning outside of being a placeholder for whatever equation is being discussed in the current moment? NO!!! It does not! It is merely a placeholder.

You see?

Well, that's what an electron is to electricity! It's a placeholder for something else, some as-of-yet not-yet-well-explained, not-yet-understood phenomena.

And that's what we're trying to understand... what phenomenon or phenomena -- is 'electron' a placeholder for, exactly, and at all affected scales, from large to sub-atomic?

What exactly is going on down there?

We tell various stories, stories like "well, one atom borrows an electron from another atom". Like a neighbor asking for a cup of sugar: "Can I borrow a cup of sugar from you?". "Sure, here one is!"

Such stories are fine and dandy... but where's the proof?

Now, to answer the second part of your question... Yes, Cosmologists (also good people!) (and others) theorise about how elementary particles came to be, but there's a few problems here:

1) Elementary particles may not be electrons, nor electrons elementary particles. And either of those might not be related to electricity.

2) Proofs that require "turtles upon turtles" hypothesis (e.g., particles, sub-particles, quarks, leptons, etc.) must at least have some connection to the real world at some level, and ideally, if we want a rigorous proof, we want some way of observing every step in the chain.

A theoretical paper based on another theoretical paper based on another theoretical paper -- is not a proof. It might turn out to be ultimately correct, but if any part of the chain of predictions is not directly observable, then that theory is still a theory...

All I'm asking any open-minded Scientist, Physicist, Cosmologist to do is ask the following question, which is:

IF ELECTRONS DO NOT EXIST, THEN WHAT ALTERNATIVES EXIST THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN ELECTRONS AND ELECTRON-LIKE PHENOMENA?

In other words, stop treating 'electrons' as the placeholder where everything is assumed, and all scientific reasoning stops...

I think that's a fair position.

I apologize (profusely!) if I have mischaracterized the thought process of any person or group in an offensive manner, but understand, it was the only way I could show a thought pattern, a way of thinking (which is not everyone mind you!), in the limited space provided, without a larger and lengthier philosophical discussion...