Considerations on the Unification of Quantum Physics with the General Theory of Relativity

Abstract From a holistic perspective of a physical space of any given size 1 , it is invariably necessary to consider its energy content, since no physical means exists of making a physical space completely devoid of energy. Such a space would therefore only be a fictive "geometric space"-that can be intellectually conceived and treated according to the rules of the appropriate geometry-although not existing in reality in the cosmos. Cosmic space always contains energy in one form or another, limited by the space under consideration. Therefore, each space possesses an energy density-no matter how low, which never becomes zero. Because of the mass-energy equivalence relationship E m.c 2 ≡ , cosmic space also possesses a mass equivalent and is therefore "materialistic" in nature. If this is considered in association with Einstein's space-time, what is obtained instead is an "energytime", i.e. an energy effect, which is based on Planck's action quantum h. Under this condition, a close relationship would appear to exist between the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics. Furthermore, it will be shown that the physical conditions of space are such that a natural quantisation of space and time exists, thus obviating the need for any artificial or arbitrary quantisation

Degradation of alumina refractory bricks by sintering Mn low-alloy steels

The economic importance of the corrosion and wear of refractory materials is indisputable because these processes determine the viability of any high-temperature liner used in metallurgical processes. The degradation mechanism of lining materials (refractory bricks) in contact with corrosive gases can be studied by examining the penetration rate or the chemical corrosion that results from the circulation of the atmosphere over the refractory material (by diffusional and convective transport). During the sintering of steel containing Mn the high vapour pressure of Mn enables its sublimation during thermal cycling; therefore, Mn is incorporated into the sintering atmosphere. Although the diffusion of Mn in steel samples is beneficial, the presence of Mn in a sintering atmosphere can modify the composition of refractory components. As a result of atmosphere-refractory interactions, a new phase is formed. In this study, the changes in refractory materials as a function of exposure time to atmospheres containing Mn-(g)) at the most common sintering temperature, 1120 degrees C, were investigated. The microstructural changes in the refractory materials and the consequences of the presence of Mn-(g) were analysed using optical microscopy, electron microscopy with X-ray (EDS) microanalysis, X-ray diffraction, and X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

Different yet the same? Differentiated integration and flexibility in implementation in the European Union

Differentiated integration (DI) and flexibility in implementation (FI) are two forms of differentiation that can be used to cope with heterogeneity among EU member states. Given the different ways in which they do so, this article asks whether DI and FI are alternatives for each other or whether they serve different functions in EU legislation. Based on a dataset that maps the occurrence of opt-outs and flexibility provisions in EU directives, the analysis shows that DI and FI tend to be used together. A qualitative analysis of directives that combine different levels of DI and FI shows that, within that overall pattern, DI is used to accommodate individual outliers, while FI is used to address widespread concerns among member states. This suggests that DI and FI are two forms of differentiation in the EU, which are used to address different aspects of a common underlying set of concerns

Differentiated integration and flexible implementation

This paper reports the findings of a comparative analysis of differentiated integration (DI) versus flexible implementation (FI). It finds overall support for our expectation that both DI and FI address international heterogeneity among EU member states and the complications in decision-making and compliance that derive from it. In addition, differentiation typically exempts individual member states in a particular situation (such as geographical location or treaty-based opt-outs) and reflects particularly high conflict in the legislative process. By contrast, our expectation that the EU uses DI in areas of core state powers, whereas FI is the instrument of choice in less politicized, market-related policy domains, receives mixed support. Finally, we observe no significant difference in the compliance effects of DI and FI. Neither instrument is sufficient to overcome the non-compliance threat emanating from imposing uniform legislation on a heterogeneous membership.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Is flexible implementation an effective and legitimate way to cope with heterogeneity in the European Union?

This policy brief brings together the findings from different studies done under Work Package 7 of the InDivEU project. Based on these studies, it formulates a number of more general conclusions and recommendations. The underlying question are how flexible implementation in the EU works and whether it can be an effective and legitimate way to cope with heterogeneity among member states. Flexible implementation allows for a more nuanced balance between EU-level cooperation and member state autonomy than differentiated integration, under which member states are either fully ‘in’ or ‘out’ of an EU-level policy arrangement. In doing so, it may contribute to the acceptance of EU policies by member states. At the same time, flexible implementation presents a trade-off between (the benefits of) flexibility and the level of ambition in an EU policy arrangement, as member states tend to use flexibility to preserve existing domestic policy arrangements. Based on this, we recommend to pay more systematic attention to the potential advantages of disadvantages of flexible implementation when proposing and discussing policy proposals. Moreover, it would be good to stimulate cross-border learning between member states, in order to enhance the innovative potential of flexible implementation