As far as my current understanding goes, the majority of mass derives from the binding energy between particles; only a small portion of the mass is due to the higgs interaction.
I was assuming that the image was confusing the term “weight” with “mass” (a completely forgivable and understandable mistake for a layman, given that both are equal on earth — give or take the variance in Earth’s gravitational field [2.2])). If weight was intended to be a separate term, then it’s just incorrect. Weight is the term given to the force that objects in a gravitational field impart on others when they are not accelerating (by “not accelerating” I mean, for example if one looks at the Earth, the object is still with reference to the surface of the Earth) [1.1], whereas mass is the term for the measure of an objects inertia [2.3][3]. Relativity shows that mass is equivalent to energy [4]. In SI, weight is measured in Newton’s [1.2] and mass is measured in kilograms [2.1].
References1. “Weight”. Wikipedia. Accessed: 2024-08-13T03:05Z. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight. 1. > the weight of an object, is the force acting on the object due to acceleration of gravity. 2. > The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. 2. “Mass”. Wikipedia. Accessed: 2024-08-13T03:08Z. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass. 1. > The SI base unit of mass is the kilogram 2. > In a constant gravitational field, the weight of an object is proportional to its mass, and it is unproblematic to use the same unit for both concepts. But because of slight differences in the strength of the Earth’s gravitational field at different places, the distinction becomes important for measurements with a precision better than a few percent 3. > Inertial mass is a measure of an object’s resistance to acceleration when a force is applied. 3. “Inertia”. Wikipedia. Accessed: 2024-08-13T03:14Z. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia. > Inertia is the tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest 4. “Mass-energy equivalence”. Wikipedia. Accessed: 2024-08-13T03:17Z. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
I wouldn’t be comfortable getting into the details of the actual “Higgs field” is, nor the Higgs boson, as I am not confident in my understanding, but, for the sake of the meme, the following excerpt from Wikipedia should suffice:
via the Higgs mechanism, [the Higgs boson] gives a rest mass to all massive elementary particles of the Standard Model, including the Higgs boson itself. [source]
I assumed it was gravity.
Gravity can be understood as the attractive force that two massive objects impart on eachother [1.1] — the strength of the gravitational force imparted by one object onto another is proportional to the mass of the former object [1.2]. Do note that this is a simplification. Gravity, as far as it is currently understood, is quite a bit more complicated than this (I am primarily referring to General Relativity) [1].
References1. “Gravity”. Wikipedia. Accessed: 2024-08-13T03:35Z. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity. 1. > gravity is a fundamental interaction primarily observed as mutual attraction between all things that have mass. 2. > $$F = \frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}$$ > where $F$ is the force, $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the masses of the objects interacting, $r$ is the distance between the centers of the masses and $G$ is the gravitational constant
To make it as simple as possible, Higgs makes it hard to push something. Gravity makes it hard to lift something.
So there are actually two types of mass. One is called inertial mass (what we feel due to the Higgs mechanism) and the other is called gravitational mass (what we feel due to gravitational attraction between two masses). They are usually the same so the distinction is usually ignored.
How do they keep getting the most important moments so wrong? What an abject failure of a platform.
Don’t these journalists know that they could self-publish their microblogs? It would be so easy for them to set up their own Mastodon instance, and they would not have to worry about being verified, or kowtowing to the whims of a fascist.
the process still relies on fetal bovine serum (FBS) as a protein-rich growth supplement for animal cell cultures.
FBS, which costs around £300 to £700 per litre
That’s a fancy serum made from cow blood
Also this all comes from a submission to an art museum in 2020, it’s not supposed to be an actual product it’s more of a proof of concept type of thing.
My hunch is that, as proposed, this is the most ethical form of meat consumption because the meat is being taken and consumed with consent from the donor. (Yourself) And there’s no living creature that even suffers from the process
I feel like this is a reference to when DeSantis announced his presidential run on a Twitter stream, but it went horribly and was riddled with technical failures.
Now Trump has agreed to be interviewed by Musk on the same kind of stream.
Meanwhile in my house, it’s always beer o’clock… somewhere else.
…but what about weed o"clock?! Amirite, guys? Thank you thank you, for that hemorrhage of applause, I’ll be here all week. I also work weddings, bar mitzvahs and quinceañeras, please contact my manager if you have any inquiries.
lemmyshitpost
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.