# TED Community » Michael HAAHEIM

• TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• #### A reply onConversation: PARADIGM SHIFT: perhaps gravity is a product of energy, rather than mass.

Apr 20 2012: Marcel,
Are you referring to universal background radiation, hypothesized zero-point energy, or some other energy component?
• #### A comment onConversation: PARADIGM SHIFT: perhaps gravity is a product of energy, rather than mass.

Apr 20 2012: Okay, I have worked out some basic figures. The equivalent mass of the EM solar flux from the sun measures approxiamtely 1.25 x 10^20 kg / year (this is the amount of mass converted diectly into EM energy). This is equivalent to approximately 0.02 or 0.03 % the mass of the earth.

Of course, we should also consider the mass and energy of the solar flux of ionised particles, which is considerably more substantial... but I do not have the exact figures at this time.

The next task would be to chart the distribution of these flux to determine if that might account for the gravitational effects observed on systemic scales. We should also consider the flux from "nearby" stars to determine any effect they might cause, as well.

After that, we could chart the effect of the flux from all the stars (and other phenomena) within a galaxy, within a timeframe representing the galactic span in light-years, to see if they might account for observations made at the galactic scale.

Assuming a relatively constant flux, these figures should be able to provide us with a "landscape" covering the span that light travels in a given measure of time. This landscape would provide us with details about the expected hypothetical distribution of gravity, from which we should be able to falsify the hypothesis (assuming it is incorrect).
• #### A comment onConversation: PARADIGM SHIFT: perhaps gravity is a product of energy, rather than mass.

Apr 20 2012: One potential consequence of this hypothesis, if I am correct: it opens up the possibility that electromagnetic radiation itself (photons) might be serving "double duty" as the "gravitons" some physicists have been searching for.
• #### A comment onConversation: PARADIGM SHIFT: perhaps gravity is a product of energy, rather than mass.

Apr 20 2012: Von,
In essence, I agree. However, modern physics makes a distinction between mass and energy, and it is mass that is currently attributed to gravity. Since electromagnetic radiation has no mass, for them, it has no gravity. On a localised scale, this does not cause a problem because the amount of gravity generated by an equivalent mass of the energy involved (current physics) would be insignificant. However, I tend to think that the amount of solar mass converted to energy by even a single star within a single year might very well be singnificant and measureable (in terms of gravitational effect) if physicists included this energy in their calculations of gravity.
Again, it should be fairly simple to falsify this hypothesis, if it is incorrect.
• #### A comment onConversation: PARADIGM SHIFT: perhaps gravity is a product of energy, rather than mass.

Apr 19 2012: Hello Marcel,

For the time being, I see no reason to redefine the classical definition of energy as the capacity of a physical system to do work. The important consideration here is that electromagnetic radiation contains energy, but it does not contain mass. My argument suggests that electromagnetic emissions (flux) should be considered in predicting gravitational effects.
Personally, I also believe that energy is "carried" exclusively through electromagnetic radiation (photons), and that matter is actually nothing more than configurations of photons interacting with one-another. However, this viewpoint is not absolutely relevent to energy as a source of gravitational attraction.
I should point out that "energy" is not a physical substance, but a (primarily mathematical) property useful for determining how physical substances will interact.
By the way, your explanation about dark matter fits in very nicely with my argument...

Regarding the paradigm shift: some shifts can be small. The nice thing is that my suggestion should be easily falsifiable for those with sufficient mathematical prowess, time, and data. If one can calculate the strength and the distribution of the electromagnetic flux within a large enough volume of space, one should be able to calculate the effects of this flux upon gravitational measurement (if my hypothesis is correct). I believe sufficient data is available to at least determine if the expectations of the hypothesis at least approach actual observations.
For the most part, physics would be untouched... the paradigm shift (if supported) just means that we would need to include measurement of electromagnetic flux to account for large scale gravitational effects.
• #### A comment onConversation: The distribution of dark matter within the universe.

Apr 18 2012: I would say that you are quite correct. An homogenous distribution of dark matter should result in an homogenous field of net forces (if the field bend light, it would do so either randomly, or in a single direction; in either case, lensing effects would not occur).
However, I do not believe that any scientist has argued that dark matter distribution is homogenous. As I understand it, the observations of dark matter appear to roughly coincide with normal matter steller objects.
Personally, I have proposed that "dark matter" is in fact quite the opposite of what its name implies. I believe that the "dark matter" effects could be explained with a paradigm shift that recognizes energy as the source of gravity, rather than mass. All mass contains energy.However, at local scales, no non-mass source of energy would be able to produce a measurable gravitational effect... but at stellar and galactic scales, the flux of energy would be sufficient to produce a meaningfl combined effect.
• #### A comment onTalk: Patricia Burchat: Shedding light on dark matter

Apr 11 2012: For those of you with a solid/professional background in physics or astronomy:

How might associating gravitation with energy, rather that with mass, effect the interpretation of observational measurements that currently support dark matter or dark energy?
As a massless phenomenon, EM radiation is not taken into account when measuring gravitational effect, but is it possible that the EM flux emminating from all the stars might account for these observations if we included them in a frame where gravitation is a function of energy?

Is there any data which would rule out this hypothesis?

#### Favorite talks

This member doesn't have any favorite talks yet.