We think we see the world clearly and in real time, but vision is different. What we do not see does not exist. Physics

Ecology of life: Fix your gaze on a line of text and do not move your eyes. In doing so, try to shift your attention to the line below. Then another one. And further. After half a minute, you will feel that your eyes seem to have dimmed: only a few words are clearly visible, on which your eyes are focused, and everything else is blurry. In fact, this is how we see the world. Is always. And at the same time we think that we see everything crystal clear.

Fix your gaze on a line of text and do not move your eyes. In doing so, try to shift your attention to the line below. Then another one. And further. After half a minute, you will feel that your eyes seem to have dimmed: only a few words are clearly visible, on which your eyes are focused, and everything else is blurry. In fact, this is how we see the world. Is always. And at the same time we think that we see everything crystal clear.

We have a small, small point on the retina, at which there are enough sensitive cells - rods and cones - to make everything normally visible. This point is called the "fovea". The fovea provides a viewing angle of approximately three degrees - in practice, this corresponds to the size of a thumbnail on an outstretched arm.

On the rest of the surface of the retina, there are much fewer sensitive cells - enough to distinguish the vague outlines of objects, but no more. There is a hole in the retina that does not see anything at all - the “blind spot,” the point where a nerve connects to the eye. You, of course, do not notice it. If this is not enough, then let me remind you that you also blink, that is, you turn off your vision every few seconds. You don't pay attention to that either. Although now you are converting. And it bothers you.

How do we see anything at all? The answer is kind of obvious: we move our eyes very quickly, on average three to four times per second. These abrupt, synchronized eye movements are called saccades. By the way, we usually do not notice them either, and this is good: as you might have guessed, vision does not work during the saccade. But with the help of saccades, we constantly change the picture in the central fovea - and as a result, we cover the entire field of view.

Peace through a straw

But if you think about it, this explanation is worthless. Take a cocktail straw in your fist, put it to your eye and try to watch a movie like that - I'm not talking about going out for a walk. How can you see it normally? This is your three degrees of vision. Move the straw as much as you like - normal vision will not work.

In general, the question is not trivial. How is it that we see everything if we see nothing? There are several options. First: we still don't see anything - we just have the feeling that we see everything. To check if this impression is not misleading, we shift our eyes so that the central fovea is directed exactly to the point that we are checking.

And we think: well, you can see it! Both to the left (zip with eyes to the left) and to the right (zip to the right). It's like with a refrigerator: if we proceed from our own feelings, then there is always a light on.

The second option: we see not an image coming from the retina, but a completely different one - the one that the brain builds for us. That is, the brain crawls back and forth like a straw, diligently makes a single picture out of this - and now we already perceive it as the surrounding reality. In other words, we see not with our eyes, but with the cerebral cortex.

Both options agree on one thing: the only way to see something is to move your eyes. But there is one problem. Experiments show that we distinguish objects at a phenomenal speed - faster than the oculomotor muscles can react. And we ourselves do not understand this. It seems to us that we have already moved our eyes and saw the object clearly - although in reality we are only going to do this. It turns out that the brain does not just analyze the picture received with the help of sight, it also predicts it.

Unbearably dark stripes

German psychologists Arvid Herwig and Werner Schneider conducted an experiment: volunteers fixed their heads and recorded their eye movements with special cameras. Subjects stared at the empty center of the screen. From the side - in the lateral field of view - a striped circle was displayed on the screen, to which the volunteers immediately looked.

Here psychologists did a clever trick. During the saccade, vision does not work - the person becomes blind for a few milliseconds. The cameras detected that the subject began to move his eyes towards the circle, and at that moment the computer replaced the striped circle with another, which differed from the first in the number of stripes. The participants in the experiment did not notice the substitution.

It turned out the following: in lateral vision, the volunteers were shown a circle with three stripes, and in the focused or central stripes, for example, four.

In this way, the volunteers were trained to associate a vague (side) image of one figure with a clear (central) image of another figure. The operation was repeated 240 times within half an hour.

After training, the exam began. The head and gaze were again fixed, and a striped circle was again displayed in the lateral field of view. But now, as soon as the volunteer began to move his eyes, the circle disappeared. A second later, a new circle with a random number of stripes appeared on the screen.

The participants were asked to use the keys to adjust the number of stripes so that they got the shape that they had just seen with peripheral vision.

Volunteers from the control group, who were shown the same figures in lateral and central vision at the training stage, determined the "degree of banding" quite accurately. But those who had been taught the wrong association saw the figure differently. If the number of stripes was increased during training, then at the examination stage the subjects recognized the three-lane circles as four-lane circles. If they were reduced, then the circles seemed to them two-lane.

Illusion of sight and illusion of the world

What does this mean? Our brains, it turns out, are constantly learning to associate the appearance of an object in peripheral vision with how that object looks when we look at it. And then he uses these associations for predictions. This explains the phenomenon of our visual perception: we recognize objects even before, strictly speaking, we see them, since our brain analyzes a blurry picture and recalls, based on previous experience, how this picture looks after focusing. He does it so quickly that we get the impression of a clear vision. This sensation is an illusion.

It is also surprising how effectively the brain learns to make such predictions: only half an hour of mismatched pictures in the lateral and central vision was enough for the volunteers to begin to see incorrectly. Considering that in real life we ​​move our eyes hundreds of thousands of times a day, imagine what terabytes of video from the retina the brain shovels every time you walk down the street or watch a movie.

It's not even about vision as such - it's just the most vivid illustration of how we perceive the world.

It seems to us that we are sitting in a transparent spacesuit and sucking in the surrounding reality. In fact, we do not interact with her directly at all. What seems to us to be an imprint of the surrounding world is actually a virtual reality built by the brain, which is presented to consciousness at face value.

It will be interesting for you:

It takes about 80 milliseconds for the brain to process information and build a more or less complete picture from the processed material. These 80 milliseconds are the delay between reality and our perception of this reality.

We always live in the past - more precisely, in a fairy tale about the past, told to us by nerve cells. We are all confident in the veracity of this tale - this is also a property of our brain, and there is no getting away from it. But if each of us at least occasionally remembered these 80 milliseconds of self-deception, then the world, it seems to me, would be a little kinder. published by

We are all accustomed to being aware of the external world through biological 5 senses. But is our vision so perfect to categorically declare - "yes or no"? Our eyes tell us that the world is three-dimensional and mobile. And the movement in it obeys the laws of mechanics. But do we all see? Think about light and colors. Our eyes distinguish between violet and red light. But any color is a luminous flux with a certain frequency and wavelength. Purple is a wave with a higher frequency and a shorter wavelength, red light (vice versa) is a wave or stream of photons with a lower frequency and a longer wavelength. And that's all. These are all visual perceptions available to us. This is how our eyes were created in the process of evolution. We see with our own eyes that the leaves of the trees and the grass are green. If our eye was formed differently, then the green grass would appear blue or red to us. This means that what we see is only a subjective reality, which does not reflect the entire completeness of the material world on planet Earth. If our visual range were shifted further beyond the violet level, towards ultraviolet radiation, then all the colors of the rainbow would simply disappear for us. If we could shift our vision into even more subtle spheres - into the world of atoms and elementary particles, then instead of a table and a chair, we would see a huge accumulation of particles that are not glued to each other (like parts of a chair). And no one would say that this is a chair or a table, tk. there is a lot of emptiness between the particles. And around is also emptiness and some humanoid creatures - Spirits or Souls - are moving.

Our eyes are not able (mostly) to see them, nevertheless, they are our reality.

For those who have forgotten physics, I will remind you HOW the properties of visible matter depend on particles invisible to our eyes.

The hardest mineral on Earth is diamond. It consists of molecules (invisible), connected in a crystal lattice in the form of a cube and is based on CARBON. The same carbon underlies soft graphite. It is soft - because its crystal lattice is flattened. Here the same carbon base (invisible to the eye) has created opposite properties. All scientists claim that the properties of matter depend on the properties of the particles of the invisible world, which our eyes cannot observe.

The mystics also claim that there is an invisible world - the Spiritual world or inhabited above-ground space.

Ancient philosophy and ancient science originated in Greece in the 6th century BC. Science then did not discard the concept of an inhabited sky, at the same time it was looking for the basis of material life, calling it "physis" (now physics). Any religion affirms the duality of human nature.

Heraclitus argued that all changes in biological nature occur due to the interaction of a pair of opposites - visible and invisible (SOUL and BODY).

Tantric Buddhist Lama Govinda says "The outer world (Body) and the inner world (Spirit) of a person are one whole, two sides of the same world of a person."

Further. Since ancient times, the Eastern philosophy of the East claims that any matter should be filled with the breath of life. This breathing is carried out due to the presence in the biological Body - the Soul. (Scientists call this the energy twin.)

In Hinduism, Krishna's teaching is that the Supreme Reality (or Soul) is the reality of plants, animals and people. For humans, it is called Brahman. According to Ananda Kumarasvati, “On the night of the appearance of Brahman (Soul-Spirit), the bodily nature comes to life. Brahman sends waves of awakening sound into motionless matter. Then matter begins the dance of life. "

In Chinese philosophy, duality is also affirmed, two opposite forms of matter YANG and YIN. The YAN symbol means creativity and is associated with the needs of the Spirit (Soul). YIN in this philosophy means the Body with its genetics, or feminine nature, designed to procreate. A person is successful when both of these great principles are in balance.

The conclusion is that there is what we see, and there is what we do not see, but it really exists.

For a person, his Soul is a "governing system", even if the human mind does not accept it.

The four elements of the Teaching are also associated with the "construction of man" - WATER, EARTH, AIR and FIRE.

1 Water is a symbol of human creation when united

Souls and Bodies in the amniotic fluid of a woman's uterus.

2 Earth is a symbol of birth or the emergence of a baby from water on earth

3 Air is a symbol of gaining experience and information

an alien (invisible as air), this is the Soul.

4 Fire is a symbol of the death of the Body and the transition of the Soul

Thus, the cause of psychological instability is the conflict between the Soul and the innate instincts of the Body.

Psycho - Soul is translated.

Idle astrologers are trying to impose these elementary truths about human NATURE as a kind of fatality in fate.

The only fatality or karma lies in the fact that a person is created only THIS in nature - by the union of the Body and Soul in the uterus of a pregnant woman.

Saved by

There are two ways to analyze the phenomena around us. First, if there is something that you see, but do not understand, you can assume that it is due to something that you do not see, but understand.

When the edges of the galactic disk were found to be spinning at the same speed as the center, it became a fashionable answer: the edges of the disk are spinning faster than they should, because we don't see much of the matter that drives them.

The second option: what we do not see does not necessarily exist - which means that what we see can (must) be explained, proceeding only from what we reliably observe.

This approach also has a long history, and it's not even about valid criticism of elephants and turtles. In 1983, Mordechai Milgrom suggested that if we slightly modify the gravitational constant or slightly change Newton's second law (m = F / a) at very small values ​​of the gravitational acceleration, then we will succeed. According to its "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" (MoND), the speed of stars orbiting the center of the galaxy at its periphery is constant and does not depend on the distance to the center. The weakness of the concept is obvious: for the MOND to work, you need to enter a configurable parameter, the very modification. It is still impossible to substantiate the latter theoretically and strictly. And this is only the main problem of the theory, and volumes can be written on its weaknesses as a whole.

"The [gravitational] accelerations that we are familiar with on Earth are roughly 9.8 m / s²," writes Michael McCulloch. - At the edges of galaxies, the acceleration [to which the stars rotating there undergo] is on the order of 10 –10 m / s². With such tiny accelerations, to reach a speed of 1 m / s, you will need 317 years, and for 100 km / h - 8,500 years. "

McCulloch's model assumes the following: in order to carefully calculate the inert mass of an object, it is necessary to take into account the emission of photons (or Unruh radiation). It arises when the accelerating observer sees the background radiation around him, even if the stationary observer looking at him sees nothing. It follows from this that the ground quantum state (vacuum) in a stationary frame seems to be a state with a nonzero temperature in an accelerating frame of reference (to an accelerating observer). Thus, if there is only a vacuum around a stationary observer, then, starting to accelerate, he will see around him many particles in thermodynamic equilibrium - a warm gas.

Note that although one work in 2010 showed the reality of experimental verification of the Unruh effect, in practice it has not yet been registered.

Michael McCulloch calls his model "modified inertia resulting from the Casimir effect on the Hubble scale" (MiECCM, or quantized inertia). As the acceleration of the object increases, the Unruh radiation wavelengths grow to Hubble scales. Radiation in MECCM is responsible for part of the inert body mass in the accelerating frame of reference (that is, almost any body in the real world), and this means that a drop in acceleration leads to a drop in the inert mass of the body while maintaining the gravitational mass at the same level. Since the inert masses of stars at the periphery of galactic disks are very small (little acceleration), much less impact is needed to rotate them at high speed than at the center of the disk.

“The point is,” explains Mr. McCulloch, “that [to explain the accelerated rotation of galactic disks] you can either increase the gravitational mass (GM) so that the stars are held by a greater mass, or reduce the inertial mass (MI) of the stars so that they could be more easily held in orbit around the lesser existing gravitational forces that come from the apparent mass. MiECKhM (quantized inertia) implements exactly this scenario. "

It would be logical to assume that the researcher will try to test his idea by comparing it with the rotation parameters of the observed galaxies. True, according to such comparisons, the calculated speed of rotation of the edges of galaxies and clusters is 30-50% higher than the observed one. But this, oddly enough, does not refute the theory. The fact is that, firstly, we cannot in any way determine the Hubble constant, on which such calculations depend, and secondly, it is impossible to calculate correctly the ratio of the masses of stars and their luminosities at the present stage.

As the acceleration decreases, the Unruh radiation will have increasing wavelengths that will exceed the Hubble scale, that is, will cease to be possible. What do you mean "will cease to be possible"? “It’s this type of thinking:” If you cannot directly observe something, then forget about it ”. Yes, it may seem strange, - Michael McCulloch admits, - but it has an outstanding history ... it was used by Einstein to discredit the Newtonian concept of absolute space and formulate the special theory of relativity ... But back to MECCM: at low accelerations, the stars cannot see Unruh radiation and very quickly begin to lose their inert mass [which is not supplemented by radiation], which makes it easier for external forces to accelerate them again, after which they see more waves of Unruh radiation, their inert mass increases, and they slow down. "

Within the framework of this model, the acceleration of the rotation of the edges of the galactic disk is explained relatively easily and without the obscure modifiers required by the MOND. True, the thesis "What we do not see does not exist" in relation to the stars of the galactic periphery seems strange, but it should be admitted that it is not "weirder" than the hypothesis of dark matter.

As you can see, it is very difficult to refute or confirm MIECKM now. One thing is clear: the principle of equivalence introduced by Einstein does not agree with it. That is, of course, this principle has been experimentally tested, and more than once. But the trouble is: this does not mean at all that he refutes the MIECHM.

Under normal acceleration observed in terrestrial laboratories (9.8 m / s²), the discrepancies between the principle of equivalence (GM = IM) and MECKM are tiny and not measurable (with existing instruments). At 10 –10 m / s² the difference is significant, but where on Earth can we find such conditions for such a weak acceleration to act on the body?

Moreover, the existing methods of experimental verification of the principle of equivalence on Earth cannot establish the truth at all if MECKM is correct. After all, the higher the acceleration (and we always have it rather big, because gravity), the more inert mass and the less it differs from gravitational one!

So how do you experimentally test such an extravagant theory? The simplest answer is to test it all on a spacecraft far from Earth's gravity, in zero gravity. Therefore, the physicist is now concerned with obtaining funding for experimental testing of his hypothesis.

The corresponding study was published in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, and its preprint is available.

Why do we see ourselves as different from who we really are? July 13th, 2015

Each of us, looking at ourselves in pictures from some party, had to wonder: "Do I really look like this?" And, sadly, most often this is far from a pleasant surprise.

However, the phenomenon has a scientific explanation.

Of course, we are all very familiar with how our faces look in the mirror. The problem is that we are used to seeing our own images upside down.

The psychological effect in question is called “attachment to what was viewed”. This term was formulated in 1968 by the psychologist Robert Zayonts. The essence of the phenomenon is that a person subconsciously gives preference to what he sees most often. Zayonts tested this on all sorts of things, from shapes to facial expressions and even, oddly enough, words.

Since most often we see ourselves as loved ones in a mirror image, this image becomes preferable for us. However, there are practically no perfectly symmetrical faces. And when the left and right sides of our faces change places, they begin to seem alien and unattractive to us.

Do you find this explanation too simple and implausible? You have a great chance to be convinced of its fairness. Just look at your mirror image.

Yes, the mirror is lying, and you can be much more attractive than you think. But unlikely. In another study (2008), it was found that people tend to see themselves as slightly prettier than they really are.

In one experiment, the researchers used real photographs of male and female faces (middle), with varying degrees of computer distortion (right and left) that made them attractive or unattractive.

For this experiment, the researchers used Photoshop to "connect" real photographs of the participants with the faces of two people of the same sex, one more and the other less attractive. They then mixed real photographs with different versions of the "blended" faces and asked the participants to choose their own, real photographs. The overwhelming majority chose to recognize themselves in "improved versions".

Therefore, the fact that we do not see ourselves as we really are is not the only fault of the phenomenon of "attachment to what has been viewed". The tendency to take wishful thinking also plays a significant role here.

The usual mirror has an insidious property: it turns the real world inside out. When combing your hair with your right hand, pay attention to the hand in which your reflection is holding the comb. If you are right-handed, then he is left-handed. Your heart is located in your chest on the left, and your looking-glass counterpart has it “beating” on the right.
From childhood, we are told that you can only see yourself in a mirror, but in fact in the mirror we see not ourselves, but our antipode. What should we do to see ourselves, our true and not inverted image? Is it possible to see ourselves as we really are, as others see us?

It turns out that you can see yourself quite simply. A direct mirror that does not turn our image inside out is shown in the figure. You need to take two flat mirrors and put them side by side, like an unfolded book at an angle of 90 degrees. Stand in the center of their common face, and you will see how the right hand, reflected in this mirror, remains the right again. Write your name and looking in this mirror will easily read it from right to left as usual, making sure you can now see yourself. In this mirror, our image is not inverted. Our heart is on the left and our image is also on the left. And although using this mirror is inconvenient at first glance, it is just a matter of habit.

Many have such a piece of furniture as a trellis in their house. It has one large main mirror in the center and two smaller mirrors on the sides. If you put such a side mirror at a right angle to the middle one, then you can see yourself exactly as others see you. Close your left eye and your reflection in the second mirror will follow your left eye movement. Before trellis, you can choose whether you want to see yourself in a mirror or in a direct reflection.

It turns out that this theory has already been tested, and back in 1977. The study, titled "Reversed Facial Images and the Mere-Exposure Hypothesis," by psychologists Theodore Meat, Marshall Dermer and Jeffrey Knight, showed that "individuals preferred photographs that correlated with their reflections in the mirror, rather than actual photographs." But what's most curious about this study is that it explains why the view in the mirror is more attractive. And as the title of the study suggests (Reversible facial images and the presence hypothesis - Cohen's note), it has something to do with the effect of presence.

For the first time, the effect of presence was proposed in the 60s of the last century by the psychologist Robert Zayonts. Simply put, the effect of presence is a psychological phenomenon when a person develops a preference for a stimulus based solely on repeated exposure or presence thereof. This effect has been demonstrated with many different stimuli (words, pictures, sounds) and in different cultures. It has even been observed among other species.

So when someone doesn't like their photo, the presence is to blame. But what is great about this effect is that it is not an individual sensation, so the next time you come across a photo where you are not portrayed the way you would like, you can relax.
relax.

Alexander Berezin
There are two ways to analyze the phenomena around us. First, if there is something that you see, but do not understand, you can assume that it is explained by something that you do not see, but understand. When the edges of the galactic disk were found to be spinning at the same speed as the center, it became a fashionable answer: the edges of the disk are spinning faster than they should, because we don't see much of the matter that drives them.
The second option: what we do not see does not necessarily exist - which means that what we see can (must) be explained, proceeding only from what we reliably observe.
This approach also has a long history, and it's not even about valid criticism of elephants and turtles. In 1983, Mordechai Milgrom suggested that if we slightly modify the gravitational constant or slightly change Newton's second law (m = F / a) at very small values ​​of the gravitational acceleration, then we will succeed. According to his "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" (MoND), the speed of stars orbiting the center of a galaxy at its periphery is constant and does not depend on the distance to the center. The weakness of the concept is obvious: for the MOND to work, you need to enter a configurable parameter, the very modification. It is still impossible to substantiate the latter theoretically and strictly. And this is only the main problem of the theory, and volumes can be written on its weaknesses as a whole.
Within the framework of the concept proposed by Mr. McCulloch, with an error of only 30-50%, it is possible to predict the rotation parameters of the disks of the observed galaxies. (Graph by M. E. McCulloch.)
Physicist Michael McCulloch of the University of Plymouth (UK) has proposed a model similar to the second inertial version of the MOND. In it, the gravitational mass, defined as the effect of a body on the surrounding bodies by attraction, and inertial mass, defined as the body's resistance to external action, are different at low accelerations. Recall: in 1907, Albert Einstein postulated that these masses are equal under all conditions (the principle of equivalence).
"The accelerations [of a gravitational nature] that we are familiar with on Earth are about 9.8 m / s╡," writes Michael McCulloch. "At the edges of galaxies, the acceleration [to which stars spinning there] are on the order of 10-10 m / s╡ With such tiny accelerations, to reach a speed of 1 m / s, you will need 317 years, and for 100 km / h - 8,500 years. "
McCulloch's model assumes the following: in order to carefully calculate the inert mass of an object, it is necessary to take into account the emission of photons (or Unruh radiation). It arises when the accelerating observer sees the background radiation around him, even if the stationary observer looking at him sees nothing. It follows from this that the ground quantum state (vacuum) in a stationary frame seems to be a state with a nonzero temperature in an accelerating frame of reference (to an accelerating observer). Thus, if there is only a vacuum around a stationary observer, then, having begun to accelerate, he will see around him many particles in thermodynamic equilibrium - a warm gas.
Note that although one work in 2010 showed the reality of experimental verification of the Unruh effect, in practice it has not yet been registered.
Michael McCulloch calls his model "modified inertia resulting from the Casimir effect on the Hubble scale" (MiECHM, or quantized inertia). As the acceleration of the object increases, the Unruh radiation wavelengths grow to Hubble scales. Radiation in MECCM is responsible for part of the inert body mass in the accelerating frame of reference (that is, almost any body in the real world), and this means that a drop in acceleration leads to a drop in the inert body mass while maintaining the gravitational mass at the same level. Since the inert masses of stars at the periphery of galactic disks are very small (little acceleration), much less impact is needed to rotate them at high speed than at the center of the disk.
“The point is,” explains Mr. McCulloch, “that [to explain the accelerated rotation of galactic disks] you can either increase the gravitational mass (GM) so that the stars are held by a greater mass, or reduce the inertial mass (IM) of the stars so that they could be more easily held in orbit around those lesser existing gravitational forces that emanate from visible mass. MiECHM (quantized inertia) implements this scenario. "
It would be logical to assume that the researcher will try to test his idea by comparing it with the rotation parameters of the observed galaxies. True, according to such comparisons, the calculated speed of rotation of the edges of galaxies and clusters is 30-50% higher than the observed one. But this, oddly enough, does not refute the theory. The fact is that, firstly, we cannot in any way determine the Hubble constant, on which such calculations depend, and secondly, it is impossible to calculate correctly the ratio of the masses of stars and their luminosity at the present stage.
It is interesting that, despite all the differences between the new theory and the MND, it also follows from MiECK that the fate of spiral galaxies (and ours too) will be very different (from left to right) from that predicted by the dominant theories. (Illustration by Olivier Tiret / LERMA.)
As the acceleration decreases, the Unruh radiation will have increasing wavelengths that will exceed the Hubble scale, that is, will cease to be possible. What do you mean "will cease to be possible"? “It's this type of thinking,“ If you can't directly observe something, then forget about it. ”Yes, it may seem strange, - Michael McCulloch admits, - but it has a great history ... Einstein used it to discredit the Newtonian concept of absolute space and formulate the special theory of relativity ... But back to MECHM: at low accelerations, stars cannot see the Unruh radiation and very quickly begin to lose their inertial mass [which is not supplemented by radiation], which makes it easier for external forces to accelerate them again after which they see more waves of Unruh radiation, their inert mass grows and they slow down. "
Within the framework of this model, the acceleration of rotation of the edges of the galactic disk is explained relatively easily and without the obscure modifiers required by the MOD. True, the thesis "What we do not see does not exist" in relation to the stars of the galactic periphery seems strange, but nevertheless it should be admitted that it is not "weirder" than the hypothesis of dark matter.
As you can see, it is very difficult to refute or confirm MIECKM now. One thing is clear: the principle of equivalence introduced by Einstein does not agree with it. That is, of course, this principle has been experimentally tested, and more than once. But the trouble is: this does not mean at all that he refutes the MIECHM.
Under normal acceleration observed in terrestrial laboratories (9.8 m / s╡), the discrepancies between the principle of equivalence (GM = IM) and MECKM are tiny and not measurable (with existing instruments). At 10-10 m / s╡ the difference is significant, but where on Earth can we find such conditions for such a weak acceleration to act on the body?
Moreover, the existing methods of experimental verification of the principle of equivalence on Earth cannot establish the truth at all if MECKM is correct. After all, the higher the acceleration (and we always have it rather big, because gravity), the more inert mass and the less it differs from gravitational one!
So how do you experimentally test such an extravagant theory? The simplest answer is to test it all on a spacecraft far from Earth's gravity, in zero gravity. Therefore, the physicist is now concerned with obtaining funding for experimental testing of his hypothesis.
A related study has been published in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, and its preprint can be found here.
Based on materials from Phys.Org.