The speed of light is C, a constant. Mass is composed of these particles that are bound by C. Because they are vibrating, a lot of that speed is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion. The gradient has a natural sorting effect.
Seems pretty intuitive to me. The question remains though, what is this density made of since gravity exists in a vacuum? Quantum fluctuations popping in and out of reality? Does this infer that quantum fluctuations are affected by mass as well? It would seem so since in Bose Einstein Condensate, what is "communicating" the state across the BEC if the particles are no longer interacting?
> Because they are vibrating, a lot of that energy is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion ... Seems pretty intuitive to me.
So this is why warm objects weigh more?
Warm objects actually do weigh more than their counterfactual cold versions haha. The stress energy tensor is the quantity to look at here.
Relevant paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/8/2/006...
Abstract: "According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments."
Downloadable here: https://www.academia.edu/download/109363694/download.pdf
I didn't know this, thanks for sharing.
https://herebeanswers.com/things-weigh-heavier-or-lighter-wh...
I feel like you have somehow found the least authoritative source for the wonderful new information provided...
why did you choose that one? serious question, because I'm trying to understand your process (and yes, maybe gently challenging it, but unsure if I should, bc you are clearly knowledgeable in specific ways about this)
Thanks, I appreciate it
This reads like a sarcastic quip so, sorry if it wasn't but, they do. Solve for m in E=mc^2 and see what happens when objects have more energy.
> Seems pretty intuitive to me
OK, but it's nonsense. Apart from whatever-you're-talking-about-with-C, quantum fluctuations are not Brownian motion; Brownian motion is the visible effect of a lot of invisible particles interacting kinetically with macroscopic particles like dust, making those macroscopic particles appear to vibrate of their own accord. Atoms that cannot be seen in a microscope flying around in straight lines and randomly bumping into dust particles that can be seen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Doesn't sound intuitive at all really...
You can see it in action with a simple random walk program. Allow the steps to decrease in size toward one side of the screen and they will statistically be sorted toward the shorter steps.