Leaderboard

The more physics one studies the more interconnected one realizes different theories get +1

True master of one-liners. The one about dating cracked me up!

Energy and momentum cannot be both conserved in such a process.

Guess we found the QFT ghost field lol

First of all, as @Mordred pointed out, this is from Quanta Magazine, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Second of all, if that were true, it doesn't mean it validates the numerology of paper under discussion. Third of all, you chose to ignore morsels of language that are very relevant: [...] may be [...] [...] hints that [...] [...] If true, it would be [...] [...] It's possible we're seeing [...] And, above all, (from provided source; my emphasis.) All of that you interpret as "actually, vacuum dilutes [...]" I'm kinda old. I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not.

@Albert2024, @JosephDavid, and the other guy, Let's hammer it home again. At some point somebody among you will understand (one can only hope). No vacuum in QFT has external legs. The vacuum in QFT is made up of things that look like, This means, in a manner of speaking, that the amplitudes (infinitely many of them) go from nothing to nothing. The vacuum state gives zero as expected value for the number operator of each and every particle. That, people, is what we call a vacuum. And thereby the name. A vacuum ultimately has nothing in it, except for amplitudes of something appearing there, and swiftly disappearing, according to quantum rules (HUP). Vacuum = nothing. Doh! OTOH, In the diagramatics of QFT, the "vacuum" this "paper" seems to be talking about would look something like this, That is, it has external legs (real particles that go from \(t=-\infty\) to \(t=+\infty\). In the picture I've represented a triplet of SU(3). It could be an octet, or whatever. Maybe not even an irreducible rep. of SU(3). What have you. It would have ramifications displaying vacuum polarisation, and so on. The point is: This is no vacuum. These "atoms" are there, and they keep there. Do you understand? Do you? Really? Do you, at long last, understand? Precision tests of the standard model would have detected this background (rather than vacuum) long ago, because other particles would scatter off these "atoms" copiously (among other things they would have to be 1043 times more abundant than nucleons and electrons, and 1033 times more abundant than photons. So, presumably, your beloved paper has been turned down experimentally ages ago. Remember this comment, which you also chose to ignore?: Maybe it's another completely different SU(3) gauge group, with its own coupling constant and all. You tell me. I don't have to read the article, as per SFN rules. If my arguments are wrong or misplaced, then answer them, instead of cajoling each other with idle pleasantries and even idler reputation points, plus meaningless punishing -rep points, as @Mordred pointed out. And that will be all, unless you finally come up with real counter-arguments from physics. Bye.

This morning I saw a video of a man who voted for Trump because he wanted to kill Obamacare but now he is angry because he is unemployed and realized the ACA he depends on for his healthcare is Obamacare. I never thought leopards would eat MY face, sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party.

So... if I tell you the density of the alloy is 10.5, you can tell me it has a composition which lies on that Isopycnic line. But you can't tell me which composition it is. In other words, you can't tell me anything that Archimedes couldn't have

I'm taking you up on this mentioning science by its big names... I personally can't think of any valid reason why nobody has appeared in the last 100 years to fill the shoes of the Newtons, Galileos and Einsteins of yore. Being full of admiration for such people myself, I must say I don't think there's anything supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in the appearance of certain types of individuals. Those able to solve especially challenging problems that take some highest-order, highly-conceptual sorting out. Statistically, it must just happen every so and so. More frequently so the more humans are born. So why hasn't it happened? Here's a frightening idea: Newton had to take refuge in Woolsthorpe after the Great Plague of 1665, Einstein had to take refuge in America after the Nazi persecution of Jews, and Galileo suffered persecution from the Roman Inquisition due to his non-orthodox views on astronomy. Could it be that we need more... --dare I say it?-- persecution? Of course, I'm just trying to be constructively provocative. My reflective point being that there could be something about times of great strife* that brings the best of human beings and make really top-notch ideas be born. Does any of that make sense? * In a milieu that has the proper cultural seeds planted, of course.

I think if democrats hadn’t overestimated the effect of Trump’s troubles — thinking he wouldn’t be a viable candidate — and underestimate the lameness of the press, they might have tried to tie things like inflation to him. They may have held back because of the thought that they could work with republican. They need to get a LOT better at hanging blame on republicans, discard silly notions of bipartisanship, and not save republicans from any disastrous decisions they make. People will be hurt, but that’s not avoidable now, and I have no sympathy for people who voted for whatever happens (and non-voters, who sinned by omission). Ignorance, as they say, is no excuse.

And living in Pennsylvania, I saw more tv ads telling me Harris is going to raise my taxes. Why people believe one source over another seems to have more to do with repetition than it does substantiation. Digging into matters deep enough to separate reality from projection takes actual time and energy, something a large percentage of the voting population appears unwilling/unable to do. One example (of many I could cite), is that none of the Trump supporters I talk with about "energy independence" realize the US is producing more oil than any country in the history of the planet or that we are one of the biggest exporters of oil (#4 actually) in the world (OTOH only China imports more oil than the US but the US is still a net exporter). Also, few of them seem to give any weight to the argument that we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP (for reasons anyone frequenting this forum already know about; climate change, finite supply, environmentally destructive to obtain, etc) rather than increasing the use of them. That brings me to the denizens of this forum, some of the most intelligent and grounded individuals I get to interact with, who don't seem to understand that we are not a majority (maybe not even a plurality) of Americans. There is a reason why a great (award winning) series like "Cosmos" never reaches 2,000,000 viewers but "American Idle" can get over 38,000,000 viewers on a good night. I would bet the majority of people here reading this would rather spend their time watching the former than the latter but that is just the impression I get from the short 15 years of being a member here. In general, I think we would rather talk about the state of the world or the latest scientific discovery than who is dating who or yesterday's football game. That's why we bother participating in this forum instead of spending the time watching the latest viral Tik-Tok video. Unfortunately, when I leave my closest circle of friends or this forum, unless I specifically bring up a topic, the conversations seem to be mere politeness and rarely increase my understanding of the world around me and I would expect (but could be wrong) this to be commonplace among not only our members but all people. If true, it means most of the information considered by many (if not most) individual to be "factual" comes from mass media, especially tv. Because of the problems with mass media, enumerated (not pushing for real answers, unequal treatment of candidates, etc) by others in this thread, is why I thought Trump would win (even though I still thought he would lose the popular vote). Ms. Harris sealed the deal when a dissatisfied electorate is told that she wouldn't have done anything different from the actions that caused (in the minds of many of those voters, anyway) that dissatisfaction.

That is the point, though. Folks with influence and money have long realized that instead of playing the game, it is far more effective to play the system and make the rules. Media used to have a sort of check on it (but the Murdoch empire also has shown how vulnerable traditional media is). However this check relies on two things: One, the quality of reporting with the intent to force accountability and two, having the electorate actually act on this information. Both mechanisms have been successfully eroded, not for the first time in modern history. So you can just claim things. As we have discussed already the last time around, traditional norms have virtually vanished and we have not created any new structures to adapt. So folks either went all in (as the GOP) into an accountability-free space where you can just say whatever you think folks like. Even if you are directly responsible for deaths due to your misinformation, you can just blame some random things except yourself. Alternatively, you can go the traditional route, try to garner the reasonable populace and think that this is enough. Rater unfortunately that does not seem like a winning strategy, whereas the free-wheeling accountability-free space is a scary winner. They did and it made little inroads. As I said, that would still be the assumption that you can reason things out. I have worked through the pandemic with a broadish segment of the population and the level of things they believe you cannot address in a handful of meetings. Not even in many. And once you make inroads, others have invented 200 new conspiracy theories. It is a losing proposition in the long run as it takes time, training and effort to discuss facts. Lying is effortless and every idiot is doing it. Also to add, it is almost impossible to talk policy over feels. If folks think their economic issue is because of immigration and that mass deportation magically will solve it, discussing policies that would actually help them will not register with the masses. You can convince individuals, if you take the time, but that won't be enough to sway elections. And the alternative is basically stoking their fears and then offer cheap (and nonsensical) solution.

The information media are largely responsible for what's happened - and all the very shit that's going to happen. The mainstream media treated Trump as if what he said and did were normal and acceptable; they very often translated his idiotic ramblings into language that resembled policies. They let stand unchallenged many of his lies and diversions. For ten years, they gave him the spotlight he requires to flourish, out of all proportion to other candidates; even covering his rallies while in the White House. They've had an unbalanced set of standards for Trump and everyone else; a ridiculously high tolerance for his toxic rhetoric, and severe judgment of his opponents. (Some of them will regret that.) Worse, the right-wing media have co-opted all sources of 'information' to half of the country, so that the people who have been pre-primed for decades (by previous GOP candidates, by their state governments and propaganda organs) to believe the poison he spews never heard any other side. (Some of them will be richly rewarded for it.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror Accusation in a mirror (AiM) (also called mirror politics,[1] mirror propaganda, mirror image propaganda, or a mirror argument) is a technique often used in the context of hate speech incitement, where one falsely attributes one's own motives and/or intentions to one's adversaries.[2][3][4] It has been cited, along with dehumanization, as one of the indirect or cloaked forms of incitement to genocide, which has contributed to the commission of genocide, for example in the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Armenian genocide. By invoking collective self-defense, accusation in a mirror is used to justify genocide, similar to self-defense as a defense for individual homicide.[4][5][6] The Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG) defines mirror politics as a "common strategy to create divisions by fabricating events whereby a person accuses others of what he or she does or wants to do", and includes it as a factor in their Analysis Framework on Genocide, when analyzing whether a given situation poses a risk of genocide

From the NY Times this morning...

You also need the experimental tools to test ideas. At what scale does the next fundamental layer live? It took decades to scale up particle colliders to confirm the standard model. We know there’s physics beyond that, but if you don’t want the math to lead the way (though I disagree with Markus that this isn’t how it should work) you need to scale up the capability to probe higher energies. Similarly for length and time scales. If the new physics doesn’t manifest at the scale we can probe, we’re out of luck hoping for experiments to lead the way. (and atomic clocks have gained several orders of magnitude in precision the last ~30 years, so my colleagues and I in that community have done our part) So it may be like going to the north pole and complaining that you can’t see any penguins. They don’t live where you’re looking.

Relating to OP just a few general themes: - the GOP base has coalesced around nativist and racist themes (great replacement theory). These lines of thoughts are penetrating the GOP with most members now suggesting that racial diversity is a threat to the country (which was steady at around 20% through the years) - this has penetrated the party at large where racist voices were largely delegated to the fringe (to various degrees) but are now carrying significant power in congress - GOP-dominated areas are changing school curricula to make it more difficult to understand the concepts of historic and systemic racism. Essentially the GOP has a concerted effort to revise historic facts and how the next generation is supposed to think about it - In short, there is a concerted ideological re-arrangement in the GOP which in which the racist fringe has been empowered and gleefully throw their weight around.

One thing to remember is that we do not teach any serious subject all in one go. Mathematics especially requires what I call a 'spiral approach'. Here a very simplified version is first presented, not the whole nine yards (nice expression in English for you). This will tie in with what has gone before and what may be presented in the future as the subject is revisited again and again as we work around the spiral. So in the present context fractions will be naturally introduced after addition, subtraction ,multiplication and division. Note these are treated separately and simply and usually called 'sums' (and in the olden days tables). So a fraction naturally becomes replacing the dots in the division sign with actual numbers. This fits in with your Penrose description and emphasises that it is division being talked about. Which naturally leads to division of pies, apples, sweets whatever. In turn this leads to finding out the difference between dividing a bag of sweets and a single pie. This leads back to proper and improper fractions (and perhaps vulgar fractions). The four arithmetic operations can then be revisited in the light of fractions, leading to the introduction of decimal fractions. Then we have the return to the four operations to work decimal fractions. Looking ahead to secondary school and algebra we are set up to try algebraic fractions and find out why (4-2) / (14-2) is not the same as (2-2) / (7-2. The next bump comes when the teacher needs to keep emphasising that dy/dx is not a fraction, but a complete entity in itself. Having said all this it would be very helpful if you would indicate why you are asking these questions and where you are going with the answers ?

With infinite monkeys a subset infinite number of them would type them out directly with no mistakes. Plenty of time for that...

A few key statistics. Abortion is legal in Canada through all nine months of pregnancy, nevertheless no providers except hospitals offer care beyond 23 weeks. 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while less than 1% beyond 21+ weeks. Reasons for late-stage abortions are: fetus gravely or fatally impaired; woman’s life or physical health at risk; abusive relationship; children or young teens unaware of pregnancy or in denial. I contend that this statistical picture reflects the position of a majority of Canadians on abortion. Having one is acceptable in an early term pregnancy while proceeding with one for a non-medical reason afterward, much less acceptable. I also contend that there would be a more robust discussion over a late-stage termination in the case of an abusive relationship and in children or young teens as the fetus would be viable then. I am almost certain that adoption would be brought into light as a substitute for abortion.

So we have Maxwell's hexagonal aether agin. Maxwell himself rejected it and commented that it was the only mechanism he could think of or make work for the aether. But we know better today. Please note that all known carriers of charge are material. As swansont has already said there is no magic substance called charge.

Relativistic conservation of momentum would be violated. It's a common exercise for students to prove. Only virtual photons can be absorbed by an electron. They must be off-shell is another way to say it. Somewhere on these forums I included a proof of the converse theorem. Namely; that a free electron cannot emit a 'proper' photon (one that satisfies Einstein's mass-shell condition). The alluded result can be found here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225522/free-electron-cant-absorb-a-photon Sorry, @Genady. I hadn't noticed you'd already answered that.

Except that it isn’t. A free electron never absorbs a photon.

For while now, I've been slowly trying to learn Finnish, since it was the natural tongue of all my grandparents. However this isn't going to be strictly about that but abut learning languages in general. They often start by teaching you a few simple phrases, that may come in useful, (hello, my name is... etc.) One of those phrases is often along the lines of "Do you speak English(or whatever language you normally speak)? For example, in Finnish, this would be "Puhetko* englanitia?" After some thought, I realized that there is no real reason you need to know how to say this. If you were in Finland and wanted to ask someone if they spoke English, you could just ask in English. If they do, they will understand you, and answer in English, and if they don't, they'll say something like "Ei"( no), or "en ymmärrä"( I don't understand), or give you some other indication that they don't. Either way, you've got your answer. Now, I can see where it would appear more polite to ask in Finnish( or in whatever the language is where you are), but in a purely logical sense. it is not strictly necessary. And of course, the one thing you definitely shouldn't do if you get the second response is to ask the question again, but LOUDER.... AND....SLOWER. *or "puhutteko" if you being formal or addressing more than one person.

I don't know who will win. I don't thinks anyone does. But here's a hint about who I would like to win.

Shouldn't the sum of all spins of the fermions in my body sometimes add to n + 1/2 so I am a fermion as a whole? Then by turning around 2 times I should look in the opposite direction. I try several times per day, but it never happened. Physics is wrong!

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation. Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose?

There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be.

Good point. I was thinking of using reflections too, until I remembered fermions. I don't think children would care too much about fermions tho... I agree. Any other choice would give you problems with the distributive property and/or other equally fundamental properties though. After all, there must be a reason why we've been choosing that option and no other one has resulted in an interesting algebraic framing.

Well you have been disappointingly combative towards replies in this thread. I thought you wanted to discuss this excellent subject and I welcome the input and ideas from several others. Out of interest here is what Richard Courant the famous Mathematician and mathematical educator has to say on the subject: Note carefully he claims that it is impossible to proove that (-1) x (-1) = +1. I has to be defined that way.

Sometimes am having problem accessing the thread. When I joined this forum I had a theory developed with sheer logical reasoning and minimum already established scientific facts like charges of a quark,and published a book about it in a most basic layman language,my background is not physics oriented but I believed we need a basic theory that someone need to go back to and make references from it's principles....and if this theory is the actual basic theory then answers should get along with it....that's a long story. My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. the reason then why the number of SU(3) units it's not getting a long with the number of photons and protons in the universe is the way this holograph is being projected,the projection 'might' being interfered with by quantum noise....the information is encoded on the surface of of SU(3) structure (remember this)... quantum noise is coming from quantum soup.... universe expansion reduces temperature hence reducing quantum noise overtime(refining the projection).....meaning the solution the author is introducing is a constancy of proportionality-the rate at which this refining is taking place i.e how the classical universe governed by GR is emerging from quantum world governed by QFT.....hope that's not too much.

I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it.what the author is doing is a continuation of arguments present in the video you posted above. I think if there was a specific directions such a solution is supposed to come from it should have been arrived at longtime ago. By the way,thanks for the video,it's a good learning material.

Your POV always seems like a parody to me, like you're just trolling to get people to comment on ridiculous statements. "I hate scientists who make weapons, but appreciate the ones who protect Americans!" Your reality has lots of noise and very, very little signal.

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics. The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective. For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger... Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

..and what Joigus has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author? According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.

"In a cutting-edge development, that has sent shockwaves through the scientific community, researchers at University College London (UCL) have unveiled a radical theory that seeks to reconcile two pillars of modern physics – quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity." Most of this is beyond me, but does anyone think this is a "cutting-edge development"? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/revolutionary-new-theory-finally-unites-quantum-mechanics-and-einstein-s-theory-of-general-relativity/ar-AA1sKLme?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8f705b996d7b40b5b2e77ece1cfecc61&ei=35#

How I felt like reacting when I found out most of my new coworkers are Trump supporters... Because yes, they are Orcs.

I don’t understand when people say things like this, but at this point I don’t care; I just assume they were dropped on their head as a child and lack the ability to distinguish the many differences Which is not an option, so this is moot. “spoiling” the ballot (like with 3rd party candidates) just might get the fascist elected

Actually, he is. Here is how: Firstly, he is i.e., he is calculating the ratio, (universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume). Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating, (energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume). Or, equivalently, (energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume). So, he is in fact

This joke isn't science related but it made me laugh and others when I told them. It also isn't my joke, I wish I could take credit for it but I can't. A saleswoman calls a household and a little boy answers it. He whispers "Hello? Who's that?" The saleswoman replies " I'm calling on behalf of my company, can I speak to your mum please?" The little boy again whispers "No, she's busy" So the saleswoman asks if she can speak to his dad. The little boy again whispers "No, he's busy too" A little confused, the saleswoman asks if there are any other adults in the house she can speak to. Once again the little boy whispers "Yes the firemen but they're busy too" The saleswoman is becoming concerned now and asks if there are any other adults in the house. The little boy yet again whispers "Yes the police but they're busy too" The saleswoman doesn't know what to think or who to ask for to speak to, so asks the little boy what they are all busy doing. The little boy again whispers "They're trying to find me"

Of course, though $755.00 is a lot of coins, and it is a highly instructive question for a reason I didn't anticipate (or at least bother to check in advance). It turns out that I'd wrongly assumed that the standard coin masses have no large common denominator whereas your reference indicates that five dimes and two quarters actually have indentical mass and value. This guarantees that if there is one solution, there are many: just substitute five dimes for two quarters as many times as you like. Let us start by guessing there are no quarters. So nickels and dimes sum to $755.00 and 25.242 kg. Two variables; two equations which simply solve to 2,100 nickels: 6,500 dimes. Yay!! Integers!! So we have a solution!! Do the same for one quarter and we get 2,100 nickels again but a non-integer number of dimes (6,497.5) so we can reject this one. But for two quarters we get another solution 2,100 nickels: 6,495 dimes - ie we've taken the first solution and exchanged 5 dimes for 2 quarters. And so on... So we can do no better than state that the box contains $105 worth of nickels and $650 dollars of mixed dimes and quarters... ... because: Will you please elaborate? The above example illustrates this very well. If instead of 5.67g we set the mass of the quarter to 5.669g, we retain the previous solution of 2,100:6,500:0 however, the slight deviation from a large common denominator introduces increasingly large deviations from integer values which invalidates all other potential candidates. This is easily demonstrated with a simple Excel spreadsheet (I've omitted lines 16 - 3,200 for sanity's sake) Your methodology requires significant common denominantors in alloy composition figures to keep the number of permutations of composition down to a manageable finite number (to facilitate a brute force computational sieve), but component densities should ideally be irrational numbers (which in actuality we'd expect them to be) to prevent the existence of multiple integer solutions. For purposes of my argument, any equal incremental step process is essentially based on stepping through integers. I'd often wondered in the past why banks etc. went to the trouble of counting coins individually rather than just weighing them in batches and exploiting the limited possible combinations to compute the value. Now I've a clearer picture. Thank you for that.

It finally emerged from behind the trees in my front yard (I had to stand at the very end of my driveway to see it) photo with hand-held iPhone

Another article concluding the opposite. And that's not taking into account the role of zealotry and martyrdom. I would further speculate that depression is only one reason for people to contemplate suicide; there are practical and rational reasons, such as painful terminal illness, lack of hope for improvement or relief of an untenable situation, guilt over having done irreparable damage, reluctance to be a burden on and source of sorrow to loved ones, avoidance of imprisonment, torture or public humiliation. Many religious people are prevented by fear of damnation from seeking the obvious escape from unnecessary suffering; many caregivers are similarly hampered by their own religious beliefs so that they actively thwart any attempt by their charges; many lawmakers are still ruled by old religious dicta and make assisting a suicide illegal. Atheists are not bound by the 'God's will' bullshit, and therefore free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

There is some evidence that religiosity is associated with lower suicide risk, as most religions forbid suicide. The protective factor differed between religions, and I believe the strongest effect was found in Muslims. However, this is not the correct conclusion: The article suggest that in the study cohort, religiosity was associated with lower suicide rates, which is not equivalent to atheists in general conducting at a higher rate. Longitudinal studies who look at large cohort, track suicide rates and then investigate the religious affiliation found contrasting results, and one of the largest ones that I know of (9 yr- over 1 mio folks) found no difference between religious and non-religious groups (https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128694) There are a few reasons why adherence to religions can have certain protective factors. For example, practicing Muslims do not consume alcohol, which can exacerbate mental health episodes. This would be the same for non-drinking atheists, of course. Other effects that are difficult to disentangle are age, but also overall religiosity of the population (or cohort), as religions can have very different manifestations in difference societies (e.g. in theocracies).