Entanglement is a constraint on information about the particles. ie. if one was spin up, the other must be spin down, but we don't know which is which.

Let me ask this question - are you thinking about sending information over optical fiber using paired photons? Entangled photons can't send information, there must always be a classical information pathway for networking applications.

>How many entangled particle groups can function independently of each other while still grouped.

Not sure what you mean here - you can in theory cross-entangle entangled groups of particles, but I doubt that is what you are really asking.

>Where two particles interact regardless of the physical distance between them.

Technically this is wrong - the two particles are pair-linked by state no matter the distance between them. They don't send information back and forth. We don't know the mechanism for preserving the entanglement.

>Entanglement has also been described as a measurement of one particle that decides the properties of another because the interaction between them determines their shared properties that must be conserved.

This is closer because at the most fundamental level is when two particles are entangled, the shared state constraints between them are preserved until measurement of either or both (and possibly after). But the measurement simultaneously collapses the state of both particles, potentially even when done to the original system state before the particles left it. However, again, we don't know the underlying mechanism (is it non-local binding? pilot waves? collapse of probabilities?).

The wrong way to think about entanglement is a pair of particles that send info back and forth between them to make sure everything checks out - they share state, they don't exchange it. This is why parallel worlds, pilot waves, etc. are theories about how the state is shared are more accurate because they attempt to preserve the state constraints globally. Nothing about entanglement moves faster than the speed of light.

And to answer your question, yes, entanglement does appear to be transitive to other particles under the right conditions, so you can chain state constraints.

This assumes that entanglement is correctly understood by experiment today, which is still not entirely clear, even though the physics community has settled on Copenhagen for the most part.

https://glassboxmedicine.com/2019/04/13/a-short-history-of-convolutional-neural-networks/

"The popular press often talks about how neural network models are “directly inspired by the human brain.” In some sense, this is true, as both CNNs and the human visual system follow a “simple-to-complex” hierarchical structure. However, the actual implementation is totally different; brains are built using cells, and neural networks are built using mathematical operations."

Um no. References 10-13 don't establish the fact, if you look at them. Convolution kernels long predate their use in neural networks as a convolution layer.

The sliding NxM convolution window is the "receptive field" but it isn't analogous to the field in the eye. The kernel matrix existed long before it was used in NNs, and is the mapping mechanism to the fully connected convolution input layer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(image_processing)

Thanks for being interested, but there is a lot of fluffery in ML discussions. The neurons of a NN are not remotely the same as biological neurons - the only thing they share in common is the activation function, and even then they are only symbolically similar.

No. Convolutional networks are simply fully connected all-combinations of every pixel in the image (under a sliding window, usually). They are not modeled after any brain, they are modeled after signal processing convolution filters (pre-neural network) for 2D signals. The learning epochs of the convolution network teach the network which pixels to pay attention to at the meta level (features), and the further levels combine those features.

Personally I wouldn't have flu rooms in my house, but to each their own.

Midjourney or DallE?

Didn't they make a Steam Controller that also went the way of the dodo in a short time frame?

Fool me once!

We've been at it since 1982 when Feynman proposed it, based on the theory that Copenhagen is the functional truth of the universe. 41 years of research without a functioning prototype. Forgive me if I skip out for a few more and ignore sensationalist articles like this one.

Thought experiment: if the quantum computer selects the one parallel reality with the answer you need to produce, as you say above, and does so merely by observation/wave collapse, wasn't the information obtained without expending work? That's zero point energy derived from the Heisenberg principle.

(hint: Hawking shows information cannot be destroyed or created without proportional energy preservation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox)

One method:

(1) We can measure genetic drift rate of DNA.

(2) We can find partial or whole retro viruses encoded in DNA of animals such as humans because they insert themselves during replication.

(3) We can compare the viruses of today to the encoding of the virus in the DNA, and we know the age of the DNA due to the drift rate in (1). We can also therefore determine the age of the virus at time of insertion.

​

Another method:

(1) Measure the mutation rate of similar viruses.

(2) Find old instances of the viruses from known prior historic periods.

(3) Compare the RNA patterns to find the mutations.

(4) Calculate the approximate age based on the mutations.

​

Many other methods exist, and generally they line up. Reading:

"Yet, over recent decades it has become apparent that viruses occasionally leave a historical record in their host's genomes in the form of endogenous viral elements (EVEs)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962544/

LTR sequence divergence rates:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048862/

In the US there are legal debates about it, but it used to be up to a certain height you own the airspace.

EDIT: https://www.namic.org/pdf/drones/1703_privateairspace.pdf

Borrowing from another user, the FAA is trying to allow UAS right to the ground.

I, for one, welcome the free pizza that will inadvertently be entering the airspace over my Nerf cannons.