This paper solved all the problems in physics regarded to quantization of gravitational  The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 

Inertial and gravitational masses of a body are equal and hence no need to distinguish between the two definitions. Actually, the value of an object’s mass is unique, independent of its method of measurement. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses provides an in depth study of gravitation. Obviously, researchers in the field of gravitation, cosmology, and related fields are studying in depth.

Here is another research group:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419367/new-quantum-theory-separates-gravitational-and-inertial-mass/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1988

Regards,

Joachim

Some references of interest, I guess:

1) "The equivalence principle" Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, April 1994, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 470-483 (by A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili, Yu. V. Chugree)

2) "ON NONCORRECT FORMULATIONS OF EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE", CHUGREEV YU.V.,  LOGUNOV A.A., MESTVIRISHVILI M.A.

3) Grøn Ø,  in:  Advances in Mathematical Physics 2012 1 (2012)

The inertial and the gravitational masses take part in two different physical phenomena: one is “active”, that is the gravitational mass; the second – “passive”, that is the inertial one. Correspondingly they act in different ways – when the G-mass acts on any distance, the I-mass –acts in “a point”, when it “resist to an impact” or provides uniform motion of a free body.

So a total equivalence exists in the static case only, when, say, a pair of bodies they don’t move relatively.

The I-mass – or more correctly – the inertia of a particle, can be explained basing on the suggestion that every particle (and, eventually, every body as a number of particles), is an cyclic algorithm that physically realizes itself as a gyroscope, which has [vector] angular speed. To change this vector is necessary to impact on the particle; at that – the effect (an acceleration of the particle) depends on the relation of the gyroscope axis direction and the force direction; so the inertia (and the mass) changes from “transverse” to “longitudinal” masses.

Since at rest particles move only in the temporal direction (along t-axis) and since the t-axis is orthogonal to any spatial direction, as well as since in macrophysics usually any interaction happens in the space (impact in the temporal direction results in appearing of a new particle(s)), the “relativistic” mass is equal to the “transverse” one.

On the other hand, it seems reasonable to suggest that at every algorithm’s cycle the particle creates the “circular graviton”, which transmits gravity force momentum to other particle (body). Since both – the inertia and the gravity turn out to be generated by the same process, i.e., by the cyclic algorithm, it turn out to be that the G- and I- masses are equivalent.

And here is no “spacetime geometry impact”…

More see “The informational model – gravity” http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0031

Happy New Year!

Cheers

Dear colleagues,

I would like to thank you all for your contributions. We read with great interest your elaborate comments, which have been timely, relevant and useful. Also allow me to wish you all in the name of our team a Happy and Prosperous New Year ! And may the year 2015 to bring you new professional achievements !

Regarding the initial question, we at the Coaltso have learned in hard way that in the moment in which I know I lost it, in the moment in which I am convinced I am far away to any possible alternative solution. Only in the ignorantly state of mind we can have a glimpse of any novelty, however based on our knowledge. Knowledge we have to keep in leash. Or for an educated beings is tremendous hard to enter themselves into this state. Because the existence, regardless our knowledge, is not made based on our prejudices but rather on our tolerance. The acceptance is the middle name of success in finding any alternative solutions.

Thus, we did not claimed contents regarding the status of truth of the equivalence principle and we neither questioned the theory itself. We touched only the problem of existence of any physics experiments inside a room meant to help us distinguish both masses.

In these contexts it can be helpful us to understand the mechanism by which a specific experiment made inside the room triggered by different causes can give us the same effect. The study of this relationship between cause and effect may lead us to the path where we can foresee the existence of a solution to our problem.

Thank you all, once again !

Cordially,

Ovidiu

Dear Ovidiu,

Again – there is no some “total” equivalence of the gravitational and the inertial masses, they occur from quite different physics; this “equivalence” is in certain sense, accidental. It realizes itself by two reasons (1) – both are “created” by the same continuously running cyclic algorithm of every particle, and (2) – since the inertia of a whole body is practically determined by every particle of the body, it is “smearing” through the body, and the gravity of some body interacts with every particle of the other body also – as the inertia; the gravity force turns out to be analogue of the “force of inertia”. But – what is principal here – since principally there don’t exist any uniform gravity field, the equivalence can by only be in a local area of bodies.

Above in my post there was an example of principal non-equivalence – the inertia depend on the angle between the direction of a momentum and, if the body moves, the motion direction; when the gravity force doesn’t depend on this direction. The other type you can observe in a room – for that you can hang on a beam balance two identical rods, say, having equal lengths , l, equal masses, m; in the middle points, so the rods are horizontal. You will see, that the balance shows the zero. Further you can rotate one of the rods, say, the right one, on 90o (orthohonal to Earth), and see, how this rod moves down.

Though, evidently, the inertial mass of the right rod didn’t change at the rotation.

Again – here is no problems, for the physics it would be much more interesting to measure the randomness of the gravity force; when such experiment (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 ) with monochromatic photons beam can be made yet now and within tens of $ millions be spent…

Cheers

I told you the problem is in the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations in Einstein SRT depending on objectivity. Reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations according to quantum theory Copenhagen school will lead to there is no space-time continuum is only time responsible to observer or measure an increase or decrease in the speed of light  in vacuum, but that is not locally. Locally the speed of light is constant and equals the speed of light in vacuum. The nonlocality of quantum theory depended on observation only, but not locally. And the discrete of the quantum states depended on observation. in each quantum state the Lorentz transformation is linear. Review my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002  and all the problems in physics are solved. I succeeded in quantization of gravity!!!!!!!!!!!

The priciple of equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass is not very accurate. The theory given in following articles is based on the priciple of equivalence between gravitational mass and the relativistic mass.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-11.PDF

Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory