We think we see the world clearly and in real time, but vision works differently. Scientists have explained why dogs see what we don't see

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 it was discovered that the edges of the galactic disk were spinning at the same speed as the center, it became a fashionable answer: the edges of the disk were spinning faster than they should because we couldn't see most of the matter causing them to spin.
The second option: what we do not see does not necessarily exist - which means that what we see can (must) be explained based only on what we reliably observe.
This approach also has a long history, and we are not even talking about justified criticism of elephants and turtles. In 1983, Mordecai Milgrom suggested that if we slightly modified the gravitational constant or slightly changed Newton's second law (m = F/a) at very small values of gravitational acceleration, then everything would work out. According to his Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND), the speed of stars revolving around the center of a galaxy on its periphery is constant and does not depend on the distance to the center. The weakness of the concept is obvious: for MoND to work, you need to enter a custom parameter, that same modification. It is not yet possible to substantiate the latter theoretically and strictly. And this is only the main problem of the theory, and volumes could be written on its weaknesses as a whole.
Within the framework of the concept proposed by Mr. McCulloch, it is possible to predict the rotation parameters of the disks of observed galaxies with an error of only 30-50%. (Graph by M. E. McCulloch.)
Physicist Michael McCulloch from the University of Plymouth (UK) proposed a model similar to the second inertial version of the MoND. In it, gravitational mass, defined as the influence of a body on surrounding bodies by attraction, and inertial mass, defined as the resistance of a body to external influences, are different at low accelerations. Let us recall: in 1907, Albert Einstein postulated that these masses are equal under all conditions (equivalence principle).
“The [gravitational] accelerations we are familiar with on Earth are approximately 9.8 m/s,” writes Michael McCulloch. “At the edges of galaxies, the acceleration [experienced by stars rotating there] is on the order of 10-10 m/s.” "With such tiny accelerations, it will take you 317 years to reach a speed of 1 m/s, and 8,500 years to reach 100 km/h."
McCulloch's model suggests the following: to carefully calculate the inertial mass of an object, one must take into account the emission of photons (or Unruh radiation). It occurs when an accelerating observer sees a background of radiation around him, even if a stationary observer looking at him sees nothing. It follows from this that the ground quantum state (vacuum) in a stationary system appears to be a state with non-zero 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 that are in thermodynamic equilibrium - warm gas.
Note that although one work in 2010 showed the reality of experimental verification of the Unruh effect, it has not yet been registered in practice.
Michael McCulloch calls his model “modified inertia arising from the Casimir effect on the Hubble scale” (MiECHM, or quantized inertia). As the object's acceleration increases, the wavelengths of the Unruh radiation grow to Hubble scales. Radiation in MiECHM is responsible for part of the inertial mass of a body in an 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 inertial mass of the body while maintaining gravitational at the same level. Since the inertial masses of stars on the periphery of galactic disks are very small (low acceleration), in order to rotate them at high speed, much less impact is needed than in the center of the disk.
“The idea,” explains Mr. McCulloch, “is that [to explain the accelerated rotation of galactic disks] you can either increase the gravitational mass (GM) so that the stars are held together by more mass, or you can reduce the inertial mass (IM) of the stars so that they could more easily maintain orbit around those smaller existing gravitational forces, which come from the visible mass. MiEKHM (quantized inertia) implements exactly this scenario.”
It would be logical to assume that the researcher would try to test his idea by comparing it with the rotation parameters of observed galaxies. True, according to such comparisons, the calculated rotation speed of the edges of galaxies and clusters is 30-50% higher than the observed one. But this, oddly enough, does not disprove the theory. The fact is that, firstly, we cannot decide on the Hubble constant, on which such calculations depend, and secondly, we cannot correctly calculate the ratio of the masses of stars and their luminosity at modern stage it is forbidden.
It is interesting that, despite all the differences new theory from the MoND, from the MiEKH it also follows 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 falls, the Unruh radiation will have increasing wavelengths that will exceed the Hubble scale, that is, it will no longer be possible. What does “will cease to be possible” mean? “It's the kind of thinking: 'If you can't directly observe something, then forget about it.' Yes, it may seem strange,” admits Michael McCulloch, “but it has a remarkable history...it was used by Einstein to discredit Newton's concept of absolute space and formulate special theory relativity... But let's return to MiEKHM: at low accelerations, stars cannot see Unruh radiation and very quickly begin to lose their inertial mass [which is not complemented by radiation], which makes it easier external forces the task of accelerating them again, after which they see more waves of Unruh radiation, their inertial mass increases, 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 unclear 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 still be recognized that it is no “stranger” than the dark matter hypothesis.
As we can see, it is now very difficult to refute or confirm MiECHM. One thing is clear: the equivalence principle introduced by Einstein does not agree with her. That is, of course, this principle has been tested experimentally, and more than once. But here’s the problem: this does not mean at all that he refutes MiECHM.
At normal acceleration observed in terrestrial laboratories (9.8 m/s╡), the discrepancies between the principle of equivalence (GM = IM) and MiECCM are tiny and cannot be measured (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 at all establish the truth if MiECHM is correct. After all, the higher the acceleration (and with us it is always quite large, because of gravity), the greater the inertial mass and the less it differs from gravitational mass!
So how can such an extravagant theory be tested experimentally? The simplest answer is to test it all on spacecraft, located far from earth's gravity, in weightlessness. Therefore, the physicist is now concerned about obtaining funding for experimental testing of his hypothesis.
The corresponding study was published in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, and its preprint can be found here.
Prepared from Phys.Org.

In the Moscow center “The Path to Yourself” the American apparatus “ Aura-camera-300″ is used for photo registration of the Kirlian effect and photographs the human aura in a color image.

Colors are incomparable among harmonious, kind, joyful people. Among the embittered and dissatisfied - auras dirty-dull with black spots. The device confidently captures what the human eye cannot see and the mind refuses to perceive.

In the 80s, the Italian scientist Luciano Bocconi spent three years photographing using alpha, beta and gamma radiation sensors, magnetometers and other devices on highly sensitive film. This happened at night in the Arenzano region of Italy on a hill three hundred meters high. Bocconi's photographs recorded ethereal life forms, plasmatic entities, luminous beings invisible to the human eye.

They glided at incredible speeds as they landed or took off, followed like dolphins over airliners, and hovered over large industrial complexes. During large fires, Bocconi noted strong radioactive and magnetic anomalies. Infrared images showed large amoeba-like objects hanging above the fire site. Smaller objects glided at a height of one meter above the ground, approaching the photo camera at 4-6 meters, rose and flew away. All photographs show traces of diffraction, that is, the wave nature of objects. The dogs' reaction made it possible to timely photograph winged creatures invisible to the eye.

The book “Invisible Reality”, published in 1991 in a small edition, by Leonid Pritsker, geophysicist, doctor of technical sciences, psychic, tells how the author photographed mental images and other entities with an ordinary Zenit camera. " Energy balls— the most common forms of bioenergy concentration,” wrote L. Pritzker. “They form above tall pointed spiers, above church domes topped with crosses, above television towers, high-rise buildings, mountain tops - where energy exchange with the Noosphere occurs.”

Anatoly Okhatrin created a photolepton apparatus that makes psiphotography(sensophyia) thought-like, microleptonic formations - wave trains flying away from a person during an emotional upsurge. “During mass excitation, large energy accumulations in the form of black balls rise and settle above people,” writes L. Pritzker. The sensography he took at a concert during the performance of Brahms' music revealed the appearance of the composer Brahms.

In 1994, doctors in St. Petersburg brought a mysterious videotape from an international scientific symposium. What they saw on the screen did not fit into known to science ideas about the brain. The hero of the video is calm and motionless, but luminous waves pulsate inside his skull and around him at the same rate as his heartbeat. The waves permeate the whole person and cover the space around the head. Doctors invited academician Anatoly Akimov to watch this video. He explained to the doctors that the luminous waves were most likely a biofield (torsion field), which electronic paramagnetic resonance equipment had finally made visible to everyone. The torsion field is a kind of “fifth force” discovered in the 20th century after the forces of gravity and electromagnetism, strong and weak interactions, it is present wherever there is rotation, from the electron to the Galaxy. The torsion signal is transmitted instantly. Torsion radiation, like electromagnetic radiation (light), has different frequencies, which are perceived by people as different colors. A person’s torsion field (his phantom) can exist for many years separately from a person. Torsion fields retain their spatial structure, and only other torsion fields can destroy it.

During our conversation with A. Akimov, we showed him an amazing photograph: an icon we had retaken under glass. The negative and the photograph showed a woman's face and a hand holding a luminous ball, and another hand with rings on its fingers. What is it? Akimov replied:

“This is apparently a torsion phantom of one of the worshipers, one of those who used to come to this icon.

Leonid Pritsker achieved a similar effect on his photographic film - faces, letters, messages unknown to him; and the author of the book “Invisible fields in your home” Valentina Lebedeva. When a mirror or reflective objects came into the frame, the camera several times captured a man’s face in profile or from the front, with luminous balls nearby. Alexey Priyma, author of the book “ Unknown worlds«.

According to Akimov, amoebas and balls are dynamic field structures, and they move.

We said that they appear near pyramidal structures, churches or near water. At the bioenergy conference we filmed almost all the speakers. But the glow only appeared over psychics. The glow is different - from dark burgundy to black.

“They’re just in different torsion ranges.” Colors on film are also frequencies. Each color has its own frequency,” Akimov said and explained:

— Glows of different shapes and colors are observed when photographing geopathogenic and technopathogenic zones. This may be a reflection of turbulence in the atmosphere, the glow of the torsion component, which is generated by the turbulence itself. And third, it could be a reasonable field structure. A scientist from Novosibirsk, Alexey Nikolaevich Dmitriev, has done a lot of work in this direction. He clearly classified: there are plasmoids that are electrical in nature. There are formations at the plasma level, but structurally organized. And there are intelligent field entities, certain “ plates", which perform certain functions. They are built on the basis of the plasma structure, and it is impossible to destroy it. She exists due to internal connections. There is a photo-recording technology that does not require the fulfillment of conditions when torsion radiation is recorded. Pure hardware methods can be implemented that do not require the participation of a psychic in photographing, and therefore do not depend on the degree of enlightenment of anyone. This is another proof of the physical objectivity of the subtle world.

Since 1993, the Baikal Dowsing Association has been photographing anomalous phenomena over geopathogenic zones, faults, over Baikal and man-made zones. Photo research is carried out during the shooting process geopathogenic zones using frames. Anomalous phenomena are recorded by any camera with any shutter speed, on color and black and white film. Several thousand photos have been accumulated anomalous phenomena, which are interpreted taking into account information about luminous balls, geopathogenic zones, optical effects before earthquakes (according to E. Barkovsky).

In the photo geopathogenic zones vertical pillars, stripes, arcs, rays, black dots-clusters, strange plasmatic entities, different in shades, sometimes in the form of birds hanging over industrial complexes and high chimneys of factories are recorded. These entities are recorded by dowsing; they usually hover above the photographer’s head and appear in the photograph as “ciliate cells” with a nucleus in the middle.

Scientists have proven that animals generate low-power laser beams. This is probably why the gray translucent cord appeared in one of our photographs above the dog and plasmoid balls by the lake and next to the pyramidal hill.

The human body also emits photon energy with a wide range of wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum.

The human eye perceives only three primary colors: red, blue and green and their combinations. Our eye does not see much of what exists in more subtle states of matter (astral and mental), but a photographic lens captures this.

During our dowsing survey on the seashore in October 1998 near Mount Ayudag in Crimea in the sky UFO appeared in the form of a cloud, we managed to photograph it. But when we took the photograph, in addition to this UFO, it showed a white semicircular trace of a UFO in the sea, invisible during the shooting.

A year later, in October 1999, at the same place near Ayudag, Natalia Glazkova photographed the sky in the clouds, and an amazing picture appeared in the photograph - orange-brown and white UFOs, invisible to the eye, and instead of a light sky, a black color appeared. Photos of these UFO identical to photographs of a UFO over Mount Montserrat in Spain.

A scientist from Yalta, Sergei Sharygin, repeatedly observed UFOs on the southern coast of Crimea and came to the conclusion: when they appear, the geomagnetic field changes. He repeatedly had to record its bursts with magnetometers during UFO flights, even when they were not visually observed.

On November 16, 1993, the television program “Extra-UFO” showed a video recording of a UFO over Sevastopol on the evening of August 5, 1993. At this time, in Yalta, S. Sharygin’s instruments showed surges in the geomagnetic field intensity. A few hours later, a UFO appeared over the sea off Yalta, causing peak readings on the magnetometers. One of these spans of several UFO captured by our camera.

N. Glazkova took unusual photographs in front of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on the day when the 850th anniversary of Moscow was celebrated, September 6, 1997. In the evening, a huge combined choir sang here, and photographs captured the raging extravaganza of torsion fields in front of the temple. Our reality seems to be displaced by another dimension of time and space, only the lights of the lanterns remain visible, and the border of the transition is marked by strange formations resembling bundles of wire.

Temple architecture and its huge dome generates powerful torsion fields, they change the energy of space. The choir at the temple created a second powerful resonance of the fields, sounds, thoughts of a huge mass of people, and as a result an amazing aura with a unique luminosity and color that first covered the lower part of the temple, and then the entire temple. The faces of those photographed were hidden in these multicolored flashes of red, yellow, dark blue and their shades. The invisible energy of telluric radiation from deep faults in the temple area probably also contributed to this. A similar photograph was taken by N. Glazkova at the Catholic Church in Yalta during the day; the monochromatic dark gray aura of torsion fields reflected only the energy of the architectural form of the church, without harmonizing the space with a choir of voices (the coloring is inferior to the Moscow extravaganza).

So, architectonics of churches, domes, temples structure the space in a special way, and, perhaps, physical processes in the field of the temple undergo changes, they do not proceed quite as one might expect, based on the laws of the familiar world.

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 it was discovered that the edges of the galactic disk were spinning at the same speed as the center, it became a fashionable answer: the edges of the disk were spinning faster than they should because we couldn't see most of the matter causing them to spin.

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

This approach also has a long history, and we are not even talking about justified criticism of elephants and turtles. In 1983, Mordecai 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 gravitational acceleration, then everything will work out. According to his “Modified Newtonian Dynamics” (MoND), the speed of stars revolving around the center of a galaxy on its periphery is constant and does not depend on the distance to the center. The weakness of the concept is obvious: for MoND to work, you need to enter a custom parameter, that same modification. It is not yet possible to substantiate the latter theoretically and strictly. And this is only the main problem of the theory, and volumes could be written on its weaknesses as a whole.

“The [gravitational] accelerations we are familiar with on Earth are approximately 9.8 m/s²,” writes Michael McCulloch. - At the edges of galaxies, the acceleration [to which stars rotating there are subjected] is on the order of 10 –10 m/s². With such tiny accelerations, it would take you 317 years to reach a speed of 1 m/s, and 8,500 years to reach 100 km/h.”

McCulloch's model suggests the following: to carefully calculate the inertial mass of an object, one must take into account the emission of photons (or Unruh radiation). It occurs when an accelerating observer sees a background of radiation around him, even if a stationary observer looking at him sees nothing. It follows from this that the ground quantum state (vacuum) in a stationary system appears to be a state with non-zero 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 that are in thermodynamic equilibrium - warm gas.

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

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

“The idea,” explains Mr. McCulloch, “is that [to explain the accelerated rotation of galactic disks] you can either increase the gravitational mass (GM) so that the stars are held together by more mass, or reduce the inertial mass (IM) of the stars so that they could more easily remain in orbit around those smaller existing gravitational forces that come from visible mass. MiEKHM (quantized inertia) implements exactly this scenario.”

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

As the acceleration falls, the Unruh radiation will have increasing wavelengths that will exceed the Hubble scale, that is, it will no longer be possible. What does “will cease to be possible” mean? "It's this type of thinking: 'If you can't directly observe something, then forget about it.' Yes, it may seem strange, admits Michael McCulloch, but it has a remarkable history... it was used by Einstein to discredit Newton's concept of absolute space and formulate the special theory of relativity... But back to MiECHM: at low accelerations, stars cannot see "Unruh radiation and very quickly begin to lose their inertial mass [which the radiation does not complement], which makes it easier for external forces to accelerate them again, after which they see more waves of Unruh radiation, their inertial mass increases, and they slow down."

Within this model, the acceleration of rotation of the edges of the galactic disk is explained relatively easily and without the unclear modifiers required by the MoND. True, the thesis “What we do not see does not exist” in relation to the stars of the galactic peripheries seems strange, but it should still be recognized that it is no “stranger” than the hypothesis dark matter.

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

At normal acceleration observed in terrestrial laboratories (9.8 m/s²), the discrepancies between the equivalence principle (GM = IM) and MiECCM are tiny and cannot be measured (by 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 at all establish the truth if MiECHM is correct. After all, the higher the acceleration (and with us it is always quite large, because of gravity), the greater the inertial mass and the less it differs from gravitational mass!

So how can such an extravagant theory be tested experimentally? The simplest answer: test all this on a spacecraft located far from Earth's gravity, in zero gravity. Therefore, the physicist is now concerned about obtaining funding for experimental testing of his hypothesis.

The corresponding study was published in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, and its preprint can be found.

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

Each of us, looking at ourselves in photographs from some party, had to wonder: “Do I really look like that?” 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 accustomed to perceiving our own images “upside down.”

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

Since most often we see ourselves loved in mirror image, then 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 appear alien and unattractive to us.

Do you think this explanation is too simple and implausible? You have a great chance to see that it is fair. Just look at a mirror image of yourself.

Yes, the mirror lies, and you may be much more attractive than you think. But it's unlikely. Another study (2008) found that people tend to see themselves as slightly more attractive than they actually are.

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

For this experiment, the researchers used Photoshop to "combine" real photographs of participants with the faces of two people of the same gender - one more attractive, the other less attractive. They then mixed real photos with different versions of the "combined" faces and asked participants to choose their own, real photos. The vast majority chose to recognize themselves in “improved versions.”

Therefore, it is not only the phenomenon of “attachment to what is viewed” that is to blame for the fact that we do not see ourselves as we really are. The tendency to take wishful thinking also plays a significant role here.

An ordinary mirror has an insidious property: it turns the real world inside out. When combing your hair with your right hand, pay attention to which hand your reflection is holding the comb. If you are right-handed, then he is left-handed. Your heart is located in the chest on the left, and in your mirror double it “beats” on the right.
From childhood we are told that we can only see ourselves in the 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 an inverted image? Is it possible to see ourselves as we really are, as those around us see us?

It turns out that you can see yourself quite simply. A straight mirror that does not reverse our image is shown in the figure. You need to take two flat mirrors and place them side by side, like an unfolded book at an angle of 90 degrees. Stand in the center of their common edge, and you will see how right hand reflected in this mirror again remains right. Write your name and look into this mirror and easily read it as usual from right to left, making sure that now you see yourself. In this mirror our image is not reversed. 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 people have a piece of furniture in their home called a trellis. It has one large main mirror in the center and two smaller mirrors on the sides. If you place such a side mirror at right angles to the middle one, then you can see yourself exactly in the form in which others see you. Close your left eye, and your reflection in the second mirror will repeat your movement with your left eye. Before the trellis, you can choose whether you want to see yourself in a mirror or direct reflection.

It turns out that this theory has already been tested, back in 1977. The study was called "Reversed Facial Images and the Mere-Exposure Hypothesis," which was conducted by psychologists Theodore Mita, Marshall Dermer, and Geoffrey Knight, and it found that "individuals preferred photographs that correlated with their reflections in the mirror rather than actual photographs." But what's most interesting about this study is that it explains why looking in the mirror is more attractive. And as the title of the study suggests (Reversible Face Imaging 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 psychologist Robert Zajonc. Simply put, the presence effect is a psychological phenomenon where a person develops a preference for a stimulus based solely on repeated exposure or presence of it. 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, presence is to blame. But what's great about this effect is that it's not an individual feeling, so the next time you come across a photo where you're not depicted the way you'd like, you can relax.
relax.

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

This approach also has a long history, and we are not even talking about justified criticism of elephants and turtles. In 1983, Mordecai 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 gravitational acceleration, then everything will work out. According to his Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND), the speed of stars revolving around the center of a galaxy on its periphery is constant and does not depend on the distance to the center. The weakness of the concept is obvious: for MoND to work, you need to enter a custom parameter, that same modification. It is not yet possible to substantiate the latter theoretically and strictly. And this is only the main problem of the theory, and volumes could be written on its weaknesses as a whole.

Physicist Michael McCulloch from the University of Plymouth (UK) proposed a model similar to the second inertial version of the MoND. In it, gravitational mass, defined as the influence of a body on surrounding bodies by attraction, and inertial mass, defined as the resistance of a body to external influences, are different at low accelerations. Let us recall: in 1907, Albert Einstein postulated that these masses are equal under all conditions (equivalence principle).

“The [gravitational] accelerations we are familiar with on Earth are approximately 9.8 m/s²,” writes Michael McCulloch. - At the edges of galaxies, the acceleration [to which stars rotating there are subjected] is on the order of 10–10 m/s². With such tiny accelerations, it would take you 317 years to reach a speed of 1 m/s, and 8,500 years to reach 100 km/h.”

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

“The idea,” explains Mr. McCulloch, “is that [to explain the accelerated rotation of galactic disks] you can either increase the gravitational mass (GM) so that the stars are held together by more mass, or you can reduce the inertial mass (IM) of the stars so that they could more easily remain in orbit around those smaller existing gravitational forces that come from visible mass. MiEKHM (quantized inertia) implements exactly this scenario.”

Within this model, the acceleration of rotation of the edges of the galactic disk is explained relatively easily and without the unclear 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 still be recognized that it is no “stranger” than the dark matter hypothesis.