I am trying to match the two methods of predicting motion created by uniform fields
Method 1 (mechanics) Acceleration is caused by certain properties creating forces when in fields. For example objects in gravitational field produces weight. This unbalanced force causes the object to acceleration.
Method 2 (energy) As an object by jiggling around moves from a high potential to a low potential it loses potential energy this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. This process creates an acceleration.
These two are methods are interchangeable and predict exactly the same result for what I will call newtonian objects. Such an object when stationary has no velocity relative to the field. It does however have KE due to the molecules vibrating ( internal energy).
For in the simplest case objects both methods predicts an acceleration perpendicular to the field. Thus mechanics works for such observations.
However for a particle where velocity and internal energy is zero there seems to be a divergence.
Method 1 no problem nothing changes.
Method 2 as the particle is not moving it cannot access the lower potential and cannot therefore increase its kinetic energy and hence change its velocity from 0. Thus remains stationary.
Heisenberg's Energy-Time uncertainty inequality (ΔE.Δt=>h/2) allows for the possible objection to this causality on basis of conservation of energy
Obviously if such a particle (electron? quark....?) is moving through the potential gradient there maybe no problem. Δx >0.
This divergence will is only definitely predicted for stationary particles that contain no other moving particle. perhaps a quark
I understand this divergence will probably never be seen for newtonian objects as we can only approach absolute zero and therefore there will always be some particles vibrating (internal KE) or the quantum physics equivalent.
From this I conclude stationary single particles as described in this state have no weight in a gravitational field.
This phenomena is not dissimilar to moving electrons in a magnetic field whose force is a function of v.
Of course if the force was a function of the acceleration it could be F=Ma. as a=0 could also be a possible state for the stationary particle. That feels better.
It does give a new vision of forces at a distance and the corresponding transfer of energy. Perhaps no need for gravitons
If this was true it would be nice as when teaching physics and you try to explain action-at-a-distance forces the students would no longer look at you as though you are an RE teacher.
Einstein was a smart man :-)
Below are some crude and early diagrams of how a pendulum and trolley would seem to move with only an energy view.
Second diagram pendulum swings further towards the large mass and therefore centre of mass moves towards the mass ( this movement is created by the force we call weight). For this effect not to happen Conservation of Energy would breakdown
Third diagram as the pendulum is not swinging (Absolute Zero) centre of mass does not move (no weight - weightless)
a model of a particle truck which can not start to move downhill and then a model of an object truck which will move down hill