There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.—Nikolai Lobachevsky

**Sandia’s Z machine exceeds two billion degrees Kelvin**

Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions.

First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.

Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come?

**Lubos Motl**

Janice Granhardt has pointed out a press release that is two days old and arguably much more serious and potentially far-reaching than the news about "sonofusion" we described yesterday.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-billion-kelvins-at-z-machine.html

I reference current article information that I had been working through here and here for obvious reasons. I would like to expand on this.

I am writng this article because of the references Lubos Motl offered on his blog about the need for, "energy production." The whole context of any model has to have understood that the current situation in gravitational perspective will have it's two extremes (weak and strong) held in thought, and ending within this context? A cyclical process maybe like thinking about Steinhardt maybe? :)

I know the idea of free energy machines is a quacks realm, if, the imput energy and output energy is not held in consideration. That a greater output must be sustained. How?

**Klein's Ordering of Geometries**

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

So on what conditions, could you map the process consistently and geometrics, to have been all inclusive?

While one may discuss these alternatives, it might require that we see this process at work on a cosmological scale, and having reduced it to the quantum realm, the questions about the geometries, becomes held under the auspice of "new physics,". That we might ask, "what new geometries?"

The natural process then would have to acknowledge the need for many microstate blackholes to have further the context of the standard model and it's extension?

Is this not a fair statement? Even though we may talk about one event, the recogition is that, this happens many times in regards to high energy articles in a collidial region. This had been answered in Risk assessment, as to why the process developed naturally, in the production of microstate blackholes, we might have created in LHC.

This did not discount, the understanding of what "extra dimensions meant" when we were understanding the "new physics." Reference here, neutrino or strangelets. It was just part and parcel of a greater understanding that John Ellis had pointed us too, is our recognition of the poor man's accelerator.

**See:**