Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged cat

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
santecarloni

Coherent Schrödinger's cat still confounds - physicsworld.com - 1 views

physicsworld.com/...47944

schrödinger cat phy

shared by santecarloni on 29 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • santecarloni on 29 Nov 11
     
    The famous paradox of Schrödinger's cat starts from principles of quantum physics and ends with the bizarre conclusion that a cat can be simultaneously in two physical states - one in which the cat is alive and the other in which it is dead. In real life, however, large objects such as cats clearly don't exist in a superposition of two or more states and this paradox is usually resolved in terms of quantum decoherence. But now physicists in Canada and Switzerland argue that even if decoherence could be prevented, the difficulty of making perfect measurements would stop us from confirming the cat's superposition.
jcunha

New angry birds type game with cats and quantum mechanics - 6 views

phys.org/...uantum-cats-game-concepts.html

technology PHY quantum

shared by jcunha on 06 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • jcunha on 06 Oct 15
     
    "A new Angry Birds-style game is set to help launch a new understanding of quantum science. Some find the concepts of quantum science confusing or unintuitive. Einstein even called quantum effects "spooky." To help people better understand some of the core concepts of quantum science, the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo is launching a game - the Quantum Cats" Looking forward to see the ACT winning the Quantum Cats competition :)
pacome delva

Quantum effect spotted in a visible object - 0 views

physicsworld.com/...42019

phy quantum_physics decoherence Schrodinger_cat

shared by pacome delva on 19 Mar 10 - Cached
  • In this way the researchers created a superposition state of the resonator where they simultaneously had an excitation in the resonator and no excitation in the resonator, such that when they measured it, the resonator has to "choose" which state it is in. "This is analogous to Schrödinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time," says Cleland.
  • pacome delva on 19 Mar 10
     
    The Schrodinger cat with drums, that's for Nik ;)
Marcus Maertens

Google neural network teaches itself to identify cats - 1 views

www.eetimes.com/...neural-network-identifies-cats

FUN INF AI

shared by Marcus Maertens on 22 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Marcus Maertens on 22 Mar 13
     
    Its already "old" news but kinda nice...
Christophe Praz

Hey There Little Electron, Why Won't You Tell Me Where You Came From? - 2 views

www.wired.com/...double-slit-empzeal

PHY science FUN

shared by Christophe Praz on 29 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Christophe Praz on 29 Sep 14
     
    A nice article explaining the principle of quantum superposition from the double slits experience. Nothing new here but still interesting to read :)
  • Paul N on 03 Oct 14
     
    I myself am quite a big fan of the one-electron universe paradigm :))) And of the cat cannon: http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12/q-can-you-do-the-double-slit-experiment-with-a-cat-cannon/
johannessimon81

Cat-like running robot video - 0 views

www.zie.nl/...m1nzhahfd34e

technology robotics

shared by johannessimon81 on 18 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 18 Jun 13
     
    If you liked 'Dog' you will surely like 'Cheeta-Cub' ;-)
Guido de Croon

Convolutional networks start to rule the world! - 2 views

www.image-net.org/...results.html

computer vision AI neural networks

shared by Guido de Croon on 12 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Guido de Croon on 12 Jan 13
     
    Recently, many competitions in the computer vision domain have been won by huge convolutional networks. In the image net competition, the convolutional network approach halves the error from ~30% to ~15%! Key changes that make this happen: weight-sharing to reduce the search space, and training with a massive GPU approach. (See also the work at IDSIA: http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/vision.html) This should please Francisco :)
  • ...1 more comment...
  • LeopoldS on 19 Jan 13
     
    where is Francisco when one needs him ...
  • Dario Izzo on 22 Jan 13
     
    ...mmmmm... they use 60 million parameters and 650,000 neurons on a task that one can somehow consider easier than (say) predicting a financial crisis ... still they get 15% of errors .... reminds me of a comic we saw once ... cat http://www.sarjis.info/stripit/abstruse-goose/496/the_singularity_is_way_over_there.png
  • johannessimon81 on 23 Jan 13
     
    I think the ultimate solution is still to put a human brain in a jar and use it for pattern recognition. Maybe we should get a stagiaire for this..?
Daniel Hennes

CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster - 2 views

www.kickstarter.com/...er-for-interplanetary-cubesats

space technology

shared by Daniel Hennes on 04 Jul 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Daniel Hennes on 04 Jul 13
     
    "Cast your name into deep space in style!"
  • dejanpetkow on 04 Jul 13
     
    Interesting approach, but with 99.9% probability they will miserably fail (at least in terms of their time schedule) simply because the technology is untested. I haven't read the refs (which miss by the way important works of E. Ahedo et al. on magnetic nozzle acceleration by ambipolar effects), but 1. using water means that you produce oxygen radicals which will erode chamber walls (ionisation efficiency is not 100% and experimental tests haven't been performed yet). 2. Electronic excitation (and radiation), rotational excitation, vibrational excitation, and dissociation are all processes which consume energy and reduce ionisation efficiency drastically. 3. It is a miniaturised Helicon thruster. Theoretical analysis probably does not consider near field effects. Far field models are probably not applicable due to the size of the thruster. I expect some surprises during thruster testing. In any case - good luck!
  • dejanpetkow on 05 Jul 13
     
    Apparently, there is only one qualification constraint regarding CubeSat propulsion which is related to volatile propellant. Since they use water as propellant and are also the owner of the CubeSat it is actually up to them how they qualify their thruster. Given that it is also possible to qualify the thruster within 18 months - since they define what "qualification" means.
Dario Izzo

Bold title ..... - 3 views

www.extremetech.com/...ow-learn-from-pure-observation

shared by Dario Izzo on 02 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 02 Sep 16
     
    I got a fever. And the only prescription is more cat faces! ...../\_/\ ...(=^_^) ..\\(___) The article sounds quite interesting, though. I think the idea of a "fake" agent that tries to trick the classifier while both co-evolve is nice as it allows the classifier to first cope with the lower order complexity of the problem. As the fake agent mimics the real agent better and better the classifier has time to add complexity to itself instead of trying to do it all at once. It would be interesting if this is later reflected in the neural nets structure, i.e. having core regions that deal with lower order approximation / classification and peripheral regions (added at a later stage) that deal with nuances as they become apparent. Also this approach will develop not just a classifier for agent behavior but at the same time a model of the same. The later may be useful in itself and might in same cases be the actual goal of the "researcher". I suspect, however, that the problem of producing / evolving the "fake agent" model might in most case be at least as hard as producing a working classifier...
  • johannessimon81 on 05 Sep 16
     
    This paper from 2014 seems discribe something pretty similar (except for not using physical robots, etc...): https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5423-generative-adversarial-nets.pdf
  • Paul N on 13 Sep 16
     
    Yes, this IS basically adversarial learning. Except the generator part instead of being a neural net is some kind of swarm parametrization. I just love how they rebranded it, though. :))
LeopoldS

Cryptocat - 5 views

crypto.cat

INF

shared by LeopoldS on 18 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 18 Apr 12
     
    tool to avoid big brother listening in ...
johannessimon81

Facebook is buying WhatsApp for ~ $ 19e9 - 1 views

www.bloomberg.com/...p-whatsapp-for-16-billion.html

technology

shared by johannessimon81 on 20 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 20 Feb 14
     
    That is about € 14e9 - enough to pay more than a million YGTs for half a year. Could we use maybe just half a million YGTs for half a year to build a similar platform and keep the remaining € 7e9 for ourselves? Keep in mind that WhatsApp only has 45 employees (according to AllThingsD: http://goo.gl/NtJcSj ). So we would have an advantage > 10000:1. On the other hand does this mean that every employee at WhatsApp gets enough money now to survive comfortably for ~5000 years or will the inevitable social inequality strike and most people get next to nothing while a few get money to live comfortably for ~1000000 years? Also: Does Facebook think about these numbers before they pay them? Or is it just a case of "That looks tasty - lets have it"? Also (2): As far as I can see all these internet companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, WhatsApp, Twitter...) seem to make most of their income from advertising. For all these companies together that must be a lot of advertising money (turns out that in 2013 the world spent about $ 500 billion on advertising: http://goo.gl/vYog15 ). For that money you could of course have 20 million YGTs roaming the Earth and advertising stuff door-to-door... ... ...
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Thijs Versloot on 20 Feb 14
     
    Jo, thats just brilliant... 500billion USD total on advertising, that sounds absolutely ridiculous.. I always wondered whether this giant advertisement scheme is just one big 'ponzi'-like scheme waiting to crash down on us one day when they realize, cat-picture twittering fb-ing whatsapping consumers just aint worth it..
  • Juxi Leitner on 20 Feb 14
     
    The whole valuation of those internet companies is a bit scary. Things like the Facebook and Twitter ipo numbers seem just ridiculous.
  • Paul N on 21 Feb 14
     
    Facebook is not really so much buying into a potential good business deal as much as it's buying out risky competition. Popular trends need to be killed fast before they take off the ground too much. Also the amount of personal data that WhatsApp is amassing is staggering. I have never seen an app requesting so many phone rights in my life.
LeopoldS

Cell phones are 'Stalin's dream,' says free software movement founder - 3 views

www.networkworld.com/...031411-richard-stallman.html

gadget

shared by LeopoldS on 28 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 28 Feb 14
     
    "I don't have a cell phone. I won't carry a cell phone," says Stallman, founder of the free software movement and creator of the GNU operating system. "It's Stalin's dream. Cell phones are tools of Big Brother. I'm not going to carry a tracking device that records where I go all the time, and I'm not going to carry a surveillance device that can be turned on to eavesdrop." he is right once more ...
  • Paul N on 03 Mar 14
     
    I am going to live in the forest! Sadly, while true, there's no way around it these days. On the up-side the information overflow these days exceeds processing speeds. Soon it will become increasingly difficult for NSA or other organizations to find anything in the tons of data they stash away. Like some guy said in a random youtube video I can't find now anymore: "good luck trying to find my personal data when I'm tagged in 5000 pictures of cats!"
Guido de Croon

Will robots be smarter than humans by 2029? - 2 views

robohub.org/be-smarter-than-humans-by-2029

AI

shared by Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14
     
    Nice discussion about the singularity. Made me think of drinking coffee with Luis... It raises some issues such as the necessity of embodiment, etc.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Luís F. Simões on 12 Mar 14
     
    "Kurzweilians"... LOL. Still not sold on embodiment, btw.
  • Ma Ru on 12 Mar 14
     
    The biggest problem with embodiment is that, since the passive walkers (with which it all started), it hasn't delivered anything really interesting...
  • Paul N on 13 Mar 14
     
    The problem with embodiment is that it's done wrong. Embodiment needs to be treated like big data. More sensors, more data, more processing. Just putting a computer in a robot with a camera and microphone is not embodiment.
  • Marcus Maertens on 14 Mar 14
     
    I like how he attacks Moore's Law. It always looks a bit naive to me if people start to (ab)use it to make their point. No strong opinion about embodiment.
  • johannessimon81 on 14 Mar 14
     
    @Paul: How would embodiment be done RIGHT?
  • Guido de Croon on 16 Mar 14
     
    Embodiment has some obvious advantages. For example, in the vision domain many hard problems become easy when you have a body with which you can take actions (like looking at an object you don't immediately recognize from a different angle) - a point already made by researchers such as Aloimonos.and Ballard in the end 80s / beginning 90s. However, embodiment goes further than gathering information and "mental" recognition. In this respect, the evolutionary robotics work by for example Beer is interesting, where an agent discriminates between diamonds and circles by avoiding one and catching the other, without there being a clear "moment" in which the recognition takes place. "Recognition" is a behavioral property there, for which embodiment is obviously important. With embodiment the effort for recognizing an object behaviorally can be divided between the brain and the body, resulting in less computation for the brain. Also the article "Behavioural Categorisation: Behaviour makes up for bad vision" is interesting in this respect. In the field of embodied cognitive science, some say that recognition is constituted by the activation of sensorimotor correlations. I wonder to which extent this is true, and if it is valid for extremely simple creatures to more advanced ones, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless. This being said, if "embodiment" implies having a physical body, then I would argue that it is not a necessary requirement for intelligence. "Situatedness", being able to take (virtual or real) "actions" that influence the "inputs", may be.
  • Ma Ru on 17 Mar 14
     
    @Paul While I completely agree about the "embodiment done wrong" (or at least "not exactly correct") part, what you say goes exactly against one of the major claims which are connected with the notion of embodiment (google for "representational bottleneck"). The fact is your brain does *not* have resources to deal with big data. The idea therefore is that it is the body what helps to deal with what to a computer scientist appears like "big data". Understanding how this happens is key. Whether it is the problem of scale or of actually understanding what happens should be quite conclusively shown by the outcomes of the Blue Brain project.
  • johannessimon81 on 17 Mar 14
     
    Wouldn't one expect that to produce consciousness (even in a lower form) an approach resembling that of nature would be essential? All animals grow from a very simple initial state (just a few cells) and have only a very limited number of sensors AND processing units. This would allow for a fairly simple way to create simple neural networks and to start up stable neural excitation patterns. Over time as complexity of the body (sensors, processors, actuators) increases the system should be able to adapt in a continuous manner and increase its degree of self-awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, building a simulated brain that resembles (parts of) the human one in its final state seems to me like taking a person who is just dead and trying to restart the brain by means of electric shocks.
  • Paul N on 17 Mar 14
     
    Actually on a neuronal level all information gets processed. Not all of it makes it into "conscious" processing or attention. Whatever makes it into conscious processing is a highly reduced representation of the data you get. However that doesn't get lost. Basic, low processed data forms the basis of proprioception and reflexes. Every step you take is a macro command your brain issues to the intricate sensory-motor system that puts your legs in motion by actuating every muscle and correcting every step deviation from its desired trajectory using the complicated system of nerve endings and motor commands. Reflexes which were build over the years, as those massive amounts of data slowly get integrated into the nervous system and the the incipient parts of the brain. But without all those sensors scattered throughout the body, all the little inputs in massive amounts that slowly get filtered through, you would not be able to experience your body, and experience the world. Every concept that you conjure up from your mind is a sort of loose association of your sensorimotor input. How can a robot understand the concept of a strawberry if all it can perceive of it is its shape and color and maybe the sound that it makes as it gets squished? How can you understand the "abstract" notion of strawberry without the incredibly sensible tactile feel, without the act of ripping off the stem, without the motor action of taking it to our mouths, without its texture and taste? When we as humans summon the strawberry thought, all of these concepts and ideas converge (distributed throughout the neurons in our minds) to form this abstract concept formed out of all of these many many correlations. A robot with no touch, no taste, no delicate articulate motions, no "serious" way to interact with and perceive its environment, no massive flow of information from which to chose and and reduce, will never attain human level intelligence. That's point 1. Point 2 is that mere pattern recogn
  • Ma Ru on 18 Mar 14
     
    All information *that gets processed* gets processed but now we arrived at a tautology. The whole problem is ultimately nobody knows what gets processed (not to mention how). In fact an absolute statement "all information" gets processed is very easy to dismiss because the characteristics of our sensors are such that a lot of information is filtered out already at the input level (e.g. eyes). I'm not saying it's not a valid and even interesting assumption, but it's still just an assumption and the next step is to explore scientifically where it leads you. And until you show its superiority experimentally it's as good as all other alternative assumptions you can make. I only wanted to point out is that "more processing" is not exactly compatible with some of the fundamental assumptions of the embodiment. I recommend Wilson, 2002 as a crash course.
  • Paul N on 24 Mar 14
     
    These deal with different things in human intelligence. One is the depth of the intelligence (how much of the bigger picture can you see, how abstract can you form concept and ideas), another is the breadth of the intelligence (how well can you actually generalize, how encompassing those concepts are and what is the level of detail in which you perceive all the information you have) and another is the relevance of the information (this is where the embodiment comes in. What you do is to a purpose, tied into the environment and ultimately linked to survival). As far as I see it, these form the pillars of human intelligence, and of the intelligence of biological beings. They are quite contradictory to each other mainly due to physical constraints (such as for example energy usage, and training time). "More processing" is not exactly compatible with some aspects of embodiment, but it is important for human level intelligence. Embodiment is necessary for establishing an environmental context of actions, a constraint space if you will, failure of human minds (i.e. schizophrenia) is ultimately a failure of perceived embodiment. What we do know is that we perform a lot of compression and a lot of integration on a lot of data in an environmental coupling. Imo, take any of these parts out, and you cannot attain human+ intelligence. Vary the quantities and you'll obtain different manifestations of intelligence, from cockroach to cat to google to random quake bot. Increase them all beyond human levels and you're on your way towards the singularity.
johannessimon81

Entangled photons make a picture from a paradox - 3 views

www.nature.com/...picture-from-a-paradox-1.15781

science PHY

shared by johannessimon81 on 28 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 28 Aug 14
     
    Physicists have devised a way to take pictures using light that has not interacted with the object being photographed. This form of imaging uses pairs of photons, twins that are 'entangled' in such a way that the quantum state of one is inextricably linked to the other.
  • Ma Ru on 28 Aug 14
     
    The actual article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7515/full/nature13586.html ScienceDaily version: "Scientists photograph the Schrödinger's cat for the first time!"
LeopoldS

IISC - International Institute of Space Commerce - 5 views

www.iisc.im/publications.asp

reports science engineering space

shared by LeopoldS on 07 Jan 10 - Cached
Nicholas Lan liked it
  • LeopoldS on 07 Jan 10
     
    interesting collection / source of reports linked to space ...
pacome delva

Smart Grid archive at From Edison's Desk - GE Global Research Blog - 0 views

www.grcblog.com/?cat=54

smart_grid

shared by pacome delva on 27 Apr 09 - Cached
  • pacome delva on 27 Apr 09
     
    Cool blog
  • nikolas smyrlakis on 27 Apr 09
     
    this is also good http://www.worldchanging.com/
ESA ACT

CATS Blog - 0 views

spaceaccess.net

launcher commercial

shared by ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  • ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09
     
    cheap access to space?
Thijs Versloot

Lasers May Solve the Black Hole Information Paradox - 0 views

iopscience.iop.org/...075015

black hole

shared by Thijs Versloot on 26 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 26 Mar 14
     
    "In an effort to help solve the black hole information paradox that has immersed theoretical physics in an ocean of soul searching for the past two years, two researchers have thrown their hats into the ring with a novel solution: Lasers. Technically, we're not talking about the little flashy devices you use to keep your cat entertained, we're talking about the underlying physics that produces laser light and applying it to information that falls into a black hole. According to the researchers, who published a paper earlier this month to the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (abstract), the secret to sidestepping the black hole information paradox (and, by extension, the 'firewall' hypothesis that was recently argued against by Stephen Hawking) lies in stimulated emission of radiation (the underlying physics that generates laser light) at the event horizon that is distinct from Hawking radiation, but preserves information as matter falls into a black hole."
anonymous

Scientists Are Turning Their Backs on Algorithms Inspired By Nature - 5 views

gizmodo.com/n-algorithms-inspir-1708656813

AI inf

shared by anonymous on 03 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • anonymous on 03 Jun 15
     
    "Over the past couple of decades, the research literature has filled up with endless new nature-based metaphors for algorithms. You can find algorithms based on the behaviour of cuckoos, bees, bats, cats, wolves, galaxy formation and black holes. (...) All researchers have been doing is wasting time on developing new approaches that are probably little better than existing ones. And the language of each metaphor then invades the literature, distracting people from using the already sufficiently expressive terminology of mathematics and, above all, working together to find the best way forward." The golden era of fireworks-like algorithm is about to end
  • Paul N on 05 Jun 15
     
    Lies, lies, all lies. They will never go away. Papers need to be published.
1 - 19 of 19
Showing 20▼ items per page