Particle Swarm

Sponsored Links

1. What are Particle swarm optimization previous works?

Hi, I'm working on the optimization field and I think I can help Please look at this home page http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/EPNSugan/ Under the publications section, you may find a number of papers on PSO. Open one of those, you can get a good list of references. Cheers

2. Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm implementation in C++?

What exactly is your question?

3. Hi.I want to ask about the applications where can we use the psoparticle swarm optimization algorithm

Here are two places where people interested in the subject gather: http://www.computelligence.org/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi http://www.swarmintelligence.org/

4. what is particle swarm optimization?

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a population based stochastic optimization technique developed by Dr. Eberhart and Dr. Kennedy in 1995, inspired by social behavior of bird flocking or fish schooling Quoted from http://www.swarmintelligence.org/tutorials.php

5. I'm hiking. As I walk, little gnats swarm about me. This happens throughout the hike. I walk twelve miles.

Well, it is a combination of both. The gnat can fly many miles further than a human can travel. This means that you could nave been annoyed by the same gnat the entire way of your hike. How ever a gnat is attracted by the moisture of your sweat. They were looking for fungus. seeing as your perspiration was new, you probably didn't have any for them to eat. So as one or more gnats became bored looking for food new ones sensed your presence and started to search for nourishment on your body.

6. How did this happen? ?

Where did you look it up? Doesn't sound like a very scientific source since many particles DO move at near the speed of light without creating any black holes.

7. The flat part of the Milky Way Galaxy's rotation curve tells us that stars in the outskirts of the galaxy:

These questions are a great bit of background to the modern Lambda-CDM cosmological model. The first question deals with galactic rotation curves, which provide some of the most intuitive, compelling evidence for dark matter. Consider Newton's formulation of gravity: F = G m1 m2 / r^2 where F is the gravitational force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies, r is the distance between them, and G is a constant. You can see that as distance increases, the strength of the force of gravity decreases. This is a familiar result, and it agrees 100% well with experiments here on Earth. Now consider our galaxy: just as gravity causes the moon to go around the Earth, and the Earth to go around the sun, gravity causes the sun (and all the other stars in the galaxy) to go around the galactic center. According to Newton's formulation of gravity, we would expect that the stars farthest from the galactic center (large values of r) would orbit more slowly (since this would lead to smaller values of F, the gravitational force). However, this is not what is observed. In fact, if we plot rotational speed versus distance from the galactic center, we see that past a certain threshold distance, the rotational speeds of all stars in a galaxy are essentially the same. Thus, the curve is essentially flat, rather than the inverse-square curve we'd expect. Accordingly, the answer to the first question is A. Apparently, stars in the outskirts of galaxies orbit just as fast as stars closer to the center. So what causes this? Finding results that seem to contradict Newton's formulation of gravity is troublesome, because in the centuries since his work, there hasn't been a single measurement that refuted it. It seems simpler to assume that our understanding of the mass-distribution of galaxies is incorrect, and if only we knew all the m-values to plug into Newton's equation, we'd predict the same flat rotation curves that we observe. The trouble with this, however, is that our estimates of where the mass of galaxies lies is based very solidly on what we can see and what we know about the universe. Hence, if there is missing mass in galaxies, it's the mass of something we are completely incapable of seeing. Not just dark, but invisible. You can buy into this idea, or you can disagree. My presentation of it here is overly simplistic, because there are in fact several other major discrepancies between well-founded cosmological models and our observations, all of which the notion of dark matter seems to resolve. Regardless, if there is no dark matter, then the answer to the second question is B: either Newton's law is wrong, or there's extra mass somewhere. The theories that have tried to revise Newton's law, however, must do so bearing in mind that on all scales accessible to us here on Earth, the law agrees perfectly with observations. Hence, a better law would only differ from Newton's on very large scales, e.g. a galactic scale. As mentioned, the current, most widely accepted cosmological model is called the Lambda-CDM model. The lambda refers to the cosmological constant (an explanation for the unrelated but similarly named phenomenon known as dark energy), while CDM stands for cold dark matter. The cold bit is to distinguish it from other theories that posited that the dark matter in the universe was very fast an energetic, or hot. But exactly what makes up this cold dark matter, anyway? Two theories exist, and to some extent, both are likely to be true. The first theory posits the existence of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), although the exact properties called for by the theory are not the properties of any known particle. (They're pretty close, though, to the properties of neutrinos, which are hard enough to detect as it is; hence, it isn't unthinkable that something even harder to detect has still gone unnoticed.) The other theory posits the existence of more familiar stuff, called massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), stuff like neutron stars, brown dwarfs, lone planets, and other very dim objects. The big problem with MACHOs is that, while we know that objects like this exist, it is unlikely that there are swarms of them flying through the galaxy undetected. Hence, the answer to the third question is A.

8. Rutherfords experiment included bombarding thin gold foil with particles based on this research he conclided t

most of the atom is empty space. That is why most of the alpha particles passed through the gold foil without being deflected. From this he concluded that atoms have a nucleus, which is fairly small.

9. tiny white bugs?

We call them fuzz bugs, they are harmless.

10. What do I see? I think I'm seeing something others do not with only my naked eye.?

Hi Mr. Enigma. That does sound pretty cool! I think the second part is floaters, and cerealkillerchicky's answer is good for that part. Almost everyone has floaters, but not everyone notices them, or not that often. If you look at a diffused brightish background is when they are most noticeable, at least to me. The first part sounds more unusual. Do you mean it is sort of like you are seeing the pixels of a digital image, but in the regular analog world? That does sound cool! I don't think I've seen anything like that except when the image really was made up of little specks (tv, computer, etc.). Don't know what it is. Maybe you are tuning in to something the rest of us don't see. Maybe you are imagining it all. Not sure there actually is a difference between the two, actually. The brain is a strange and wonderful place. And so is the world. Have fun!

11. What do I see? I think I'm seeing something others do not with only my naked eye.?

No, this is not strange or anything, i see this too, and if you shift your eyes the specks seem to move or jump in that direction right? Yeah, this is normal its just your eyes seeing the reflection of your eyeball, its kind of hard to explain.

12. What do I see? I think I'm seeing something others do not with only my naked eye.?

13. What do I see? I think I'm seeing something others do not with only my naked eye.?

You are seeing floaters. This is debris in your vitreous humour that causes slight distortion of your vision. If you see lots of them, then I'd go see an ophthalmologist, because it *can* be a sign of s number of different eye diseases (though it doesn't have to be).