https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170802134720.htm

Particle collisions recreating the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) that filled the early universe reveal that droplets of this primordial soup swirl far faster than any other fluid. The new analysis of data from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) -- a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility for nuclear physics research at Brookhaven National Laboratory -- shows that the "vorticity" of the QGP surpasses the whirling fluid dynamics of super-cell tornado cores and Jupiter's Great Red Spot by many orders of magnitude, and even beats out the fastest spin record held by nanodroplets of superfluid helium.

The results, just published in Nature, add a new record to the list of remarkable properties ascribed to the quark-gluon plasma. This soup made of matter's fundamental building blocks -- quarks and gluons -- has a temperature hundreds of thousands of times hotter than the center of the sun and an ultralow viscosity, or resistance to flow, leading physicists to describe it as "nearly perfect." By studying these properties and the factors that control them, scientists hope to unlock the secrets of the strongest and most poorly understood force in nature -- the one responsible for binding quarks and gluons into the protons and neutrons that form most of the visible matter in the universe today. (my bold)

***

"We're specifically looking for signs of Lambda hyperons, spinning particles that decay into a proton and a pion that we measure in the Time Projection Chamber," said Ernst Sichtermann, a deputy STAR spokesperson and senior scientist at DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Because the proton comes out nearly aligned with the hyperon's spin direction, tracking where these "daughter" protons strike the detector can be a stand-in for tracking how the hyperons' spins are aligned.

***

The results reveal that RHIC collisions create the most vortical fluid ever, a QGP spinning faster than a speeding tornado, more powerful than the fastest spinning fluid on record. "So the most ideal fluid with the smallest viscosity also has the most vorticity," Lisa said.
This kind of makes sense, because low viscosity in the QGP allows the vorticity to persist, Lisa said. "Viscosity destroys whirls. With QGP, if you set it spinning, it tends to keep on spinning."

The data are also in the ballpark of what different theories predicted for QGP vorticity. "Different theories predict different amounts, depending on what parameters they include, so our results will help us sort through those theories and determine which factors are most relevant," said Sergei Voloshin, a STAR collaborator from Wayne State University. "But most of the theoretical predications were too low," he added. "Our measurements show that the QGP is even more vortical than predicted."

Increasing the numbers of Lambda hyperons tracked in future collisions at RHIC will improve the STAR scientists' ability to use these measurements to calculate the strength of the magnetic field generated in RHIC collisions. The strength of magnetism influences the movement of charged particles as they are created and emerge from RHIC collisions, so measuring its strength is important to fully characterize the QGP, including how it separates differently charged particles.

Comment: this is the pure energy that was present after the Big Bang, before matter formed. Note my bolded part of the second paragraph. God may be in the form of this or an energy form related to this.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-properties-subatomic-soup-mimics-early.html

"Particle collisions at RHIC—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility located at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—regularly recreate tiny specs of quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a mixture of quarks and gluons, the fundamental building blocks of visible matter, which last existed as free particles some 14 billion years ago. The collisions free the quarks and gluons from their confinement within ordinary particles (e.g., protons and neutrons) so nuclear physicists can study their interactions and the force that holds them together in the universe today.

***

"For this particular study, STAR physicists were tracking particles called kaons and pions that emerge when charm-quark-containing particles known as a D-zeros decay. A concerted effort from many groups of the collaboration—including researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Kent State University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago—made this analysis successful in a short time.

""We use the HFT to look for kaons and pions that are very close to one another— within fractions of a millimeter of one another—whose paths from the collision emerge from a single point that's away from the collision vertex, but not very far, about 100-500 microns," Videbaek said. That's the distance D0s travel before they decay, he explained. If the kaon and pion have just the right mass and trajectories emerging from such a point, the scientists can conclude that they originated from a D0 at that spot—and use these measurements to track the emergence of D0s from all around the QGP.

***

"D0s are created in the very first part of the collision, when the quarks and gluons are free," Videbaek said. "Physicists didn't think these heavy-quark particles would have time to interact, or equilibrate, with the QGP, which exists for only an infinitesimally small fraction of a second."

"Instead, the fact that the heavy quarks exhibit the same elliptic flow as lighter particles do is evidence that they are in equilibrium, interacting with the free quarks and gluons in the QGP.

"'The type of flow we observed for particles with heavy quarks suggests that their interactions inside the quark-gluon plasma are so strong that the heavy quarks themselves become part of the quark-gluon 'soup,'" said Dong.

"Grazyna Odyniec, leader of Berkeley Lab's Relativistic Nuclear Collisions Program, added, "The discovery of the elliptic flow of a very massive charm quark is of fundamental importance for our understanding of quark-gluon plasma phase dynamics. It opens up a broad range of theoretical speculations about the nature of a possible mechanism (or mechanisms) behind this observation.'"

Comment: It seems obvious to me that energy particles in the early plasma soup represent what has always existed. The universe did not come from nothing. And somehow they relate physically to the composition of God's consciousness. Perhaps further study will explain how a quark gluon plasma soup can actually mentate.

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-simulations-swirling-whirlpool-like-subatomic-soup.html

"At its start, the universe was a superhot melting pot that very briefly served up a particle soup resembling a "perfect," frictionless fluid. Scientists have recreated this "soup," known as quark-gluon plasma, in high-energy nuclear collisions to better understand our universe's origins and the nature of matter itself.

***

"This soup contains the deconstructed ingredients of matter, namely fundamental particles known as quarks and other particles called gluons that typically bind quarks to form other particles, such as the protons and neutrons found at the cores of atoms. In this exotic plasma state—which can reach trillions of degrees Fahrenheit, hundreds of thousands of times hotter than the sun's core—protons and neutrons melt, freeing quarks and gluons from their usual confines at the center of atoms.

***

"When plotted out in two dimensions, the simulations found that slightly off-center collisions of heavy nuclei produce a wobbling and expanding fluid, Wang said, with local rotation that is twisted in a corkscrew-like fashion.

"This corkscrew character relates to the properties of the colliding nuclei that created the plasma, which the simulation showed expanding along—and perpendicular to—the beam direction. Like spinning a coin by flicking it with your finger, the simulations showed that the angular momentum properties of the colliding nuclei can transfer spin properties to the quark gluon plasma in the form of swirling, ring-like structures known as vortices

***

"The simulations provide more evidence that the quark-gluon plasma behaves like a fluid, and not a gas as had once been theorized. "The only way you can describe this is to have a very small viscosity," or barely any friction, a characteristic of a so-called 'perfect fluid' or 'fundamental fluid,'" Wang said. But unlike a familiar fluid like water, the simulation focuses on a fluid state hundreds of times smaller than a water molecule.

***

"Wang and his collaborators have developed a sophisticated, state-of-the-art hydrodynamic model of the quark-gluon plasma and have identified swirling structures that vary within the fluid itself," he said. "Even more useful is the fact that they propose a method to measure these structures in the laboratory."

"Lisa also said there is ongoing analysis work to confirm the simulation's findings in data from experiments at RHIC and the LHC. "It is precisely innovations like this, where theory and experiment collaborate to explore new phenomena, that hold the greatest hope for greater insight into the quark-gluon plasma," he said."

Comment: To conclude previous debates about the possibility pure energy: theoretically these experimental studies are looking at pure energy particles, before they coalesce into matter. Energy is thought to be able to exist without matter being formed from them at the time.

GATEKEEPER: Where I disagree with you is that I state...the "daddy" and the "brother" do not exist. This statement can be taken to any level of philosophy. These levels are convergent, thus "more reasonable" to me."
> 
> I assume you are referring to my statement that both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you (whereas we do not have direct experience of God). Again, it would be helpful if you would put the quote and your comment next to each other instead of reproducing the whole of the previous post in one block. Thank you.
> 
> You go on to say:"If my brother tries to show you "me", do you see his "me"? ...Is that "view" the real me?" Of course the answer to both questions is no, because nobody knows the "real" you or me. We don't even know ourselves, because we cannot possibly undergo every experience that would reveal every potential of the "real me". But that doesn't mean we don't exist, or even that the characteristics we think we know are unreal. The very fact that you and I are exchanging views is sufficient evidence for me to assume that you do exist, even if I don't "know" you. The same cannot be said of God. It's true that some people see evidence of his existence in life itself (and some even claim to experience God directly), but that evidence doesn't have the apparent objectivity of an exchange of ideas that can be viewed and confirmed by thousands of observers. Consensus is the nearest we can get to objectivity, and it then comes down to subjective degrees of conviction.-subjective as "taste". and just as limited.-
I agree. too bad it's the loudmouth that stops this exchange. both scientist and priest that have agenda's. The rest of don't really care about "being right". we only want to learn and grow. At least that is my experience in dealing with many people through my career.-i think the problem is processing the data in a usable format. But then again we let politicians kill our kids too, so what do I know.

GK: my pop was with 82nd on 6/6/1944.-Since you are here, I assume he survived.

GATEKEEPER: Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right.
> 
> Not sure about the sock image, since there's something solid at the end of the quest (ugh maybe scented too). Not sure about the description of you either, since both your daughter and your brother have direct experience of you. But I do like the "child" image. We're all trying to understand something that we simply do not have the ability, the tools, or the range of perception and experience to understand. It's clear from the six and a half years in which we've been discussing these issues that ALL stances are confusing (which is why I remain agnostic). But we don't stop, and we learn a great deal on the way. And we sometimes have fun too.->>-agreed, over all that is.-I would, as David is, argue we do have tangle evidence. But many chose not "look". I feel many times it is the presenter's slant that obscures the view. And it is the "listener's" pre conceptions too. For me, I don't really care if yes, or no, only that the conclusion is reasonable or not. -as the fundie claims "no-nothing" does not fit any observation. I do not engage in David's style of presenting, but even it makes that claim less probable than the "there is something" claim to me. That's convergent.-Where I disagree with you is that I state ... the "daddy" and the "brother" do not exist. This statement can be taken to any level of philosophy. These levels are convergent, thus "more reasonable" to me. -If my brother tries to show you "me", do you see his "me"? Can he describe me before you meet me? Does that description help (or hurt) your final view of me? Is that "view" the real me?-For you. where do "I" exist? Where does your friend "exist"? Thats the starting point. It is not, as some would claim, the "end". only the begining of the end. lol ... my pop was with 82nd on 6/6/1944.

GK: for me. Just because I do not know how it arises doesn't have to mean it was there before. In fact, I would only use what we do know to predict what it may or may not be.-My point is that we humans are the only organisms with a full compliment of consciousness. We don't know 'how' it appeared and when we ask 'why' we get into discussions of religions and God.

ROM: Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour.
> 
> You are using a broader definition of behaviour than I am. I will deliver a lecture with my own mannerisms if that is what you mean.
> > > 
> > > Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel.
> > ROM: It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof.
> 
> My world is not strange, but compared to your approach, we are different.
> > 
> > Rom: I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness.
> 
> No argument. Magnetism certainly affects the neuron network. We know that consciousness utilizes the brain, but that still does not answer how consciousness arises, again per Nagel.-for me. Just because I do not know how it arises doesn't have to mean it was there before. In fact, I would only use what we do know to predict what it may or may not be.

ROM: Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour.-You are using a broader definition of behaviour than I am. I will deliver a lecture with my own mannerisms if that is what you mean.
> > 
> > Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel.
> ROM: It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof.-My world is not strange, but compared to your approach, we are different.
> 
> Rom: I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness.-No argument. Magnetism certainly affects the neuron network. We know that consciousness utilizes the brain, but that still does not answer how consciousness arises, again per Nagel.


> > Rom: Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.
> 
> Don't you experience your own consciousness?-Yes and no ... most of the time no, and when yes it is more like a fresh memory.
 
> > 
> Rom: Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours.
> 
> Is intelligence behaviour? It doesn't follow.
Try exhibiting intelligence without a behaviour.
> > 
> > Rom; Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics.
> 
> Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel.
It is only in your strange world of science that requires proof. I would be more worried if Nagel had suggested there is no disproof.-I can find corroborating evidence for my position though, strong magnetic fields close to my brain can affect my perception of consciousness.


> > 
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.
> 
> Does a chemist in a university chemistry department have more intelligence than the department itself. Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours. An ant and its colony?
> 
 
> 
> This underlying physics I am far from ready to call god.-yeppers,-I was watching talk about the formulas being "out of time" because they exist in all times. What he neglected to point out is that a formula without any variables is quite meaningless. But add just one, one little "fixed" number and the whole thing comes to life. -Also, some people forget that the formulas are based on the interactions. Not the other way around.-Yes, the combined "working knowledge" of the colony is larger than the ant's. Just like the combined working knowledge of the human race is larger than mine. This is very simple to show.


> Rom: Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.-Don't you experience your own consciousness?
> 
> 
Rom: Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours.-Is intelligence behaviour? It doesn't follow.- > 
> Rom; Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics.-Your explanation has no proof. Read Nagel.

dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence. We can't prove it, but I hope you and others will agree that humans seem to have a greater degree of intelligence than chimps than earthworms than dandelions than rocks than grains of sand.
> 
> David: Another logic leap: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence-Unfortunately things like intelligence and consciousness are one of those strange things, that I think we define into existence.-Does a chemist in a university chemistry department have more intelligence than the department itself. Is a human being more or less intelligent without the flora and fauna that is normally found in the intestines. They certainly modify our behaviours. An ant and its colony?-Our intelligence and consciousness our are personal little gods. Now it would appear these things are ultimately caused by electron exchange (a chemist's view) and no doubt a whole bunch of underlying fundamental physics. -This underlying physics I am far from ready to call god.


> GK: Exocytosis
> 
> also good.-Agreed. it shows how complex is the single cell


> GK: Yes, my stance is confusing. Like a child going through his/her room looking for a particular set of socks. I use "child" because that is how I see humans when we try and describe "god". I have a 7yr old. Ask her to describe me. Then ask my brother. They both are right-Thank you for this description of yourself. And I agree with you, humans describing God are out of their depth.


> dhw: So if it's true that energy creates matter, it's not unreasonable to assume that this creation takes place through intelligent quantum energy particles working together.-Quite a jump in logic. A single particle joins with another and then another and now we have a matter particle. It doesn't require intelligence at this basic level.
> 
> dhw: This brings us to a problem. Experience suggests that different forms of matter have varying degrees of intelligence. We can't prove it, but I hope you and others will agree that humans seem to have a greater degree of intelligence than chimps than earthworms than dandelions than rocks than grains of sand.- Another logic leap: I agree that living matter has differing degrees of intelligence based on brain complexity, but inorganic matter does not have intelligence- 
> dhw: The parallel is to be seen in all forms of life, which through evolution develop ever greater levels of complexity ... each one brought about by the quantum energy particles combining their different intelligences, in this case from within organic cells.-You have come back to Earth in a sense. At least you are discussing organic matter. Evolution shows a persistent increase in complexity. In some way quantum particle may play a role, if we only understood QM better. We do see evidence of quantum processes here and there (photosynthesis).
> 
> dhw:Again I'll break off in case you have any objections so far.-Registered throughout.