text:
Oral History Transcript — Dr. Michael Horne
This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of the American Institute of Physics.
This transcript is based on a tape-recorded interview deposited at the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. The AIP's interviews have generally been transcribed from tape, edited by the interviewer for clarity, and then further edited by the interviewee. If this interview is important to you, you should consult earlier versions of the transcript or listen to the original tape. For many interviews, the AIP retains substantial files with further information about the interviewee and the interview itself. Please contact us for information about accessing these materials.
Please bear in mind that: 1) This material is a transcript of the spoken word rather than a literary product; 2) An interview must be read with the awareness that different people's memories about an event will often differ, and that memories can change with time for many reasons including subsequent experiences, interactions with others, and one's feelings about an event. Disclaimer: This transcript was scanned from a typescript, introducing occasional spelling errors. The original typescript is available.
Access form | Project support | How to cite | Print this page
See the catalog record for this interview and search for other interviews in our collection
Interview with Dr. Michael Horne
Michael Horne; September 12, 2002
ABSTRACT: Horne describes his research on neutron interferometry, starting in the mid-1970s and subsequent work on multi-particle interferometry, entanglement and down conversion. Interactions with Clifford Shull, Abner Shimony, Anton Zeilinger and Daniel Greenberger.
Horne:And then he kept coming back. You know, hed come back for six months, stay, and he has made many, many visits to MIT over the late seventies and all through the eighties.
Bromberg:Oh. So he was —
Horne:But he was here.
Bromberg:I had better tell the tape, because I just turned it on. We are talking about Anton Zeilinger, whom Professor Horne met Erice in 1976.
Horne:Thats right. And by that time I had just started working with Cliff [Clifford] Shull at the MIT reactor where he was doing the new work then on neutron interference. There were several groups that had started that before he had. Sam Werner [spelling?] had a group in Missouri and they had built an interferometry. You know, everybody was using the same techniques in these first interferometers — silicon crystals and thermal neutrons. And they were just essentially doing the double-split experiment of the neutrons. And Abner [Shimony] and I saw that, saw those first papers, the one from Missouri. The one from Missouri by Werner, their experiment was very nice. They turned the interferometer so that the effect of gravity could be seen, so they could actually see the phase shift of the radiation due to turning the interferometer in the gravity field. The other group that had started this business was Rauch and his student Zeilinger and others, and they were in Vienna at a reactor. And one of the first experiments they did was a demonstration of the effect if you turn a neutron around once using magnetic fields, if you rotate it once. Then its not really like it was before you turned it. It actually introduces a negative sign in its quantum state, which with an interferometer is visible, so they could see this negative. If you turn it another time — so if you turn it twice — then its back to its original condition. So those are the two experiments that caught our attention.
Bromberg:What made you —? I mean you were working up until this point on Bells theorem.
Horne:Well, I thought Bells theorem was finished. Right? That is the original work with Abner for my thesis, in collaboration with Clauser, and then, tidying up some questions we had with Clauser in that 74 paper, was trying to improve the argument a bit. And then by then the experiments were done. You know, Clauser had done the experiment in California, and the quantum mechanics was beautifully confirmed. The Harvard experiment that gave a disconfirmation of quantum mechanics. Everyone knew there was something wrong with it, they just didnt know what. So I figured we were through. In 1975 I was looking for some more fun things to do with quantum mechanics, and I saw these neutron interferometer papers coming out from the States and from Austria. Abner and I talked about them together and we even wrote a paper.[1] We wrote a paper proposing that this turn a neutron around once and get a negative and then turn it twice and then it would be back to positive, we wrote a paper proposing that this experiment be done, not knowing that they were just finishing doing it in Vienna. It was a wonderful toy to see something as basic as interference which is the heart of quantum mechanics be doable now with something as massive as a neutron. We just thought, This is something that is going to be fun to play with for a number of years. So thats why I made the transition. I thought the Bell physics was essentially done, the experiment had been done, the elements of reality dont seem to be possible because 0 the quantum mechanics was confirmed. So I thought the Bell physics was essentially a finished package. So I saw these one-particle interferometers and thought I would like to play with them. And so I heard from someone — I dont know who told me that there might be soon one of these same instruments running at MIT because one of the founding fathers of neutron diffraction was a professor at MIT, Cliff Shull. So I dont remember who told me about him. He hadnt done any interference yet, but as it turned out he was working on it trying to get one running. So I went over there sometime in 75, Im not sure when. I went over and walked into the reactor where his office was and he was there with a couple of his grad students, and I introduced myself and told him about my background in Bell physics and my work with Abner and my excitement about these new one-particle neutron interferometers, and I essentially asked him, Can I play? And he says, Sure. Just take that desk. So I just started going over there every Tuesday, which was my day off at Stonehill, and weekends and summers and Christmas. Thats how I started.
Bromberg:So you were really set up to meet Zeilinger, to meet someone from the Rauch group, I mean that was —
Horne:Well, then what happened was, completely separate from Shull — And by the way when I went over there he had a student who was Joe Callerame who was currently trying — they had already cut the crystal and they had a new neutron beam and they were trying to make it show interference, and during the first few months I was hanging around there it started working. I was there the night that — what Joe did was put pieces of aluminum foil in one of the beams. He put pieces of aluminum foil and that would phase shift the radiation in that beam relative to the other. So the aluminum foil was playing the role of glass plates, you know in optical interference. And he put in one sheet of Reynolds Wrap and then he put in another sheet of Reynolds Wrap and watched the counts go down, indicating the phase shift was happening. And then he kept putting in more sheets and then it came back up, right? So there was interference. So we called Shull at his home in Lexington and he drove in. It was late one night. We went out and had a drink because the interferometer was working. So this was the third one. You know, there was the one in Missouri and then there was the one in — [Vienna].
Bromberg:I see.
Horne:But at this time there was no connection with the Vienna group or with Zeilinger. That connection happened because of a little carryover of the two-particle stuff. There was a meeting and there was going to be a conference in Sicily in 76. I was already hanging out with Shull and the neutron interferometer people. There was going to be a conference on Bell physics. I didnt have anything new to present on the Bell physics, but you know it was something I had worked on and so I decided to go with Abner to the Sicily meeting. We also went with Frank Pipkin, who was the professor at MIT who had done the [Bell Theorem] experiment. So the three of us went together to Sicily to that meeting, and it was at that meeting that I ran into this person about my age — thirty-ish. Zeilinger had come to that meeting and his plan was to talk about their neutron experiments even though it wasnt directly connected to two-particle quantum mechanics or to Bell stuff. It was so basic and fundamental he thought that would be a good place to go talk about it.
Bromberg:So he was essentially also motivated to do physics that had to do with fundamentals of —
Horne:Thats right. He was interested in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. They were playing with one-particle interference with the neutron. And we started talking to each other over every dinner at that meeting, and we found out we very much liked each others ideas about whats interesting. And I would talk a lot about two-particle stuff which he hadnt really thought about, and then from my previous half decade in two-particle physics, and he would tell me what they were doing with their one-particle interferometer which I was just starting to get into with the MIT group. So we just bumped into each other at this meeting in Sicily. And then when I came back home sometime in the next few months or before the year was out Cliff Shull at MIT said, holding up a letter, Do you know someone named Anton Zeilinger? And I said, Oh yes, I met him at a meeting in Sicily. He says, Well, he wants to come over for a postdoc. What do you think? and I say, Great. Itll be fun. Youll like him. And it would be fun to have him here. He is a very good person. And so thats how Shull and Zeilinger and I got started together.
Bromberg:So what year did he actually come for the postdoc?
Horne:So he came and spent — he brought his family, brought his wife Elizabeth, and he had two children at the time. I think possibly one; his oldest daughter was around. And they moved in and spent a year here in the Boston area. And so we started talking, you know, almost daily about what to do with this new toy. You know, what would be fun to do with this new neutron interferometer. We were not particularly talking about two-particle quantum mechanics at that time. Years later we started talking about it, but I can tell you the reasons. But that was years later. So I actually — I should summarize what we did during that decade. The idea was to find interesting things to do with this new interferometer, and that is basically following nature. Disturb it in some way, you know, rotate it, turn it on its side, subject it to various fields — things that would definitely cause a phase shift. Then we would do calculations to see what the phase shifts would be, and then we would do an experiment to see what they were. We didnt anticipate any surprises, but this was a whole new thing to do, subject neutrons to various perturbing influences and see if the quantum mechanics did what it was supposed to do.
Bromberg:In that whole group is there a lot of connection with what the quantum optics people are doing with their interference or are they just two separate worlds.
Horne:They were sort of separate. We didnt — by then quantum optics had gotten fairly sophisticated. I wasnt particularly knowledgeable about quantum optics. In fact I really knew very little about say what was going on in Rochester. Very interesting experiments were taking place with optics, and quantum optics was becoming a very rich field with a rich theoretical structure to it, and it was second quantized, it was quantum mechanics applied in a new area and I wasnt in that area. I wasnt working over there. What we were doing was sending these neutrons one at a time to this two-path gizmo and we — it was so basic we felt all we had to do was just take the de Broglie waves and do the calculation. The master equation for our work was the Schrödinger equation, but it was actually even more basic than that. We just needed to know the de Broglie wavelength and then work out it would change due to the perturbation we were playing with that year. So we rotated them and we tilted them and we perturbed them and there was always lots of interesting questions about the detail of, at this point, the de Broglie optics. Inside these crystals there were lots of interesting questions about how to work that out in detail. Because it wasnt just heres a place where the beam gets split; it was a thick region where it gets split, you know, inside this crystal. So there were lots of interesting things about the interferometer itself that needed to be worked out. And Danny [Daniel] Greenberger had been working on some of those questions once he started working with the Missouri group. Greenberger got involved with Overhauser, who was one of the people who first played with Sam Werner with the neutron interferometer in Missouri, and Danny saw some things from past experiments that puzzled him. Way back in the early sixties people had done electron interference. And one of the interesting things they had done with it was Aharonov-Bohm experiments. And Danny was, unbeknownst to me at the time, was looking back at those experiments and was puzzled about how they were able to see the effects they saw even though there were magnetic fields in the rooms. And he got really interested in these questions about electron interference. And thats how he got started thinking about one-particle interference, whatever the particle. Incidentally I had started reviewing some of those old electron experiments motivated by now doing the neutrons, and I came up on the same puzzle that Danny did, right? I thought, Gee, I wonder how that experiment worked back in the sixties even though there were magnetic fields. And it turns out there was a compensating effect. And we both had independently worked on that, but we didnt know about each other. What happened was Danny was very much interested in what might be done with these neutron interferometers. He was specifically interested in the gravity experiments that had been done at Missouri. Somebody told him that a new person would be starting to do experiments with neutrons up at MIT, and so he came up to talk to these people, Cliff Shull. And thats where he ran into us. He came up and he was interested in basic quantum mechanics. Some of his interests were some experiments having to do with the nature of time and how it could be studied using a neutron interferometer. He had a background in relativity and basic — I dont know all these details. He still works on these sometimes even today.
Bromberg:Yeah, well of course hes on our list.
Horne:Yeah. So you should talk to him about the particular things that he was thinking about in going up to MIT to meet Shull. He wanted to know — It turned out Danny had written a paper back in the sixties that suggested that this gravity experiment be done, but he didnt know that it could be done. Right? He didnt know anybody to do it. He might have even come up to visit Cliff Shull early in the seventies, you know before these interferometers got created, with the idea that maybe he could make one. So this predates the Rauch group in Vienna and the Missouri group. He was interested in trying to make a neutron interferometer before anybody else starting making them. And then of course it turns out they showed up on the scene years later without his being involved, and so he started getting involved — first with the Missouri people and then with the MIT people. So thats the background that got me bumping into Danny. By 78 the three of us knew each other, Danny and Anton and me, and we were bumping into each other at MIT. Danny would come up from New York say for a weekend or for a week. Sometime in the summer hed come for a couple of weeks and wed talk about neutron interference and various questions that were coming up at that time about the instrument and about how to use it. So there are sort of two types of problems like getting a deeper understanding of whats going on in the crystals and thinking of new fun things to use it for. And so thats sort of the gist of the late seventies and all of the eighties.
Bromberg:And so you were not like Abner Shimony trying to work out any of the ontological or epistemological conclusions of Bells theorem. That was not —?
Horne:That was over. That was over. But Abner would occasionally show up at MIT with his idea about what we might do.
Bromberg:I see.
Horne:That is, there were proposals for slightly modifying the Schrödinger equation. One of them came from Poland, introducing a nonlinear term, and Abner realized that this sort of proposal could be tested with a neutron interferometer. And so he came over and said, you know, we had various things we were doing and he said, Heres one you might want to do, You can check this non-linear, non-orthodox term that people were thinking about sticking in the Schrödinger equation. And we did the experiment. Shull and his group did the experiment. That was one proposed by Abner. So you know I had ideas for things to do and worked with Shulls students while they went and did them, like a proposal on rotation. I spent a lot of time talking about rotating the thing, because the effect of rotation had been studied back in the 19th century with optical interferometers, and we thought, Gee, we should do the neutron version.
Bromberg:I see. I didnt realize that.
Horne:And then there was also the question of putting matter inside the interferometer to make phase shifts, but not just the matter itself, put the matter in motion. And there were famous experiments back in the 1850s — Fizeau in France, you know, had done the so-called Fizeau Effect where he studied the effect of moving matter in an optical interferometer in various experiments. Famous experiments from 1850. And so we said, one of the things I started thinking about doing was, Lets do that with neutrons. Lets put the aluminum — or whatever we were using as phase shifters — and lets put it in motion and see the neutron Fizeau Effect. So that was one of the things I had worked on in the beginning. And you know Abner had his and various ones came up with various suggestions. So by 78 there were starting to be meetings about neutron interferometry and lots of experiments had been finished with Abners suggestion and the Fizeau Effect and the gravity effect that Danny had been interested in and had actually got done in Missouri. So all these things were doable and were starting to be done, and we started meeting not only at Cliffs labs but at conferences that were taking place. And one of them that happened early, in the late seventies was at Grenoble.[2] And Danny went and Abner went and Shull went and I went. We all went there to talk about the things we were doing, each of us and together, and thats the first time I met Rauch, right? I knew about Rauch because he was Antons mentor, he was his advisor, but I first went to Grenoble and ran into some of the other people besides Anton.
Bromberg:And thats in Vienna?
Horne:And they were in from Vienna, but it was in Grenoble that they were going to have this meeting, because Grenoble has a great source of neutrons, and years later that reactor would be used to do other experiments, many with Rauch involved in it, and Anton, where the neutrons were very slow and you had a much longer de Broglie wavelength. So it was at that meeting I presented my work on the Fizeau Effect and met some of the people from Europe who had a background in playing with neutrons. Some of them, their ideas on the thing with neutrons had come from Europeans who first built these instruments to do X-ray interference of the same wavelength. They were the ones who started the crystal interference business. But they were doing it with X-rays.
Bromberg:Was that an interesting cross-fertilization?
Horne:Well thats how the instruments came to be.
Bromberg:I mean from your point of view, did it enlarge the way you were thinking about things, or just didnt have all that much effect?
Horne:Well, thats how these instruments got started, from people who came from another direction. My basic interest from the beginning — Im going to have to get me some sugar by the way because I have taken my insulin for the day and have to start eating at regular times. Let me run and get some juice.
Bromberg:Okay, and maybe Ill get some water. [recorder turned off, then back on...] Lets see now.
Horne:So I think Ive described — Youve already talked to Abner, and so you know how we got together [on Bell experiments] and what we worked on and about Clauser being independently doing the same thing and then we got together. So since we started today I think Ive described how the second part of my career, which was the one-particle neutron interference, got started and how the various players got together. Anton was already doing neutron interference as a student with Rauch, and I had joined the MIT group just looking for something fun to do, and then we both ended up working here off and on for fifteen years, Anton and I. He would come for visits and Danny would come up and join us.
Bromberg:And that got us up to about Grenoble.
Horne:Grenoble was just one of many meetings. This business went on for fifteen years. Nothing particular to report except you know they were just very fundamental experiments. That is, you know, we would do one and then move on and do another one.
Bromberg:Well of course the transition — I dont know if this is the next transition, but you get this transition to using entangled particles.
Horne:Okay, well thats the next chapter. I can tell you that story. So basically the first period is the Abner-Clauser two-particle entanglement specifically addressing Bell experiments and showed it up. Einsteins elements of reality dont exist. In the second period, the one which we were just describing —
Horne:— was one-particle interference and with various little neat, never-done-before experiments, but none of them worth singling out particularly. We could just do things that had never been doable before. But then there was a time when I went back to more than one particle and that started in 85. And it started because Anton was here on one of his many visits and we were sitting in Shulls lab, and one of the drawings that we always had in Shulls lab — it was almost like we had a tablet of them printed. It was a diamond. Right? And when we wanted to start talking about what we were doing with the current experiment thats been going on for years, wed always point to the diamond because there is the two paths and wed talk about what we were doing on each path. It was just the talking stage. So those sorts of figures were all around us, these single diamonds for a two-path interferometer. We got an announcement for a meeting to take place in Finland to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper.[3] And Anton knew I had been involved in the Bell EPR business but hadnt for about ten years been actively doing anything. By the way, during that ten years — just as an aside — during that ten years it had all of a sudden become widely known, that more people were interested in this Bell stuff then back when we started. I think theres a graph in this AJP collection of papers that shows how many people referred to the Bell paper, and theres like nobody all through most of the seventies and then by the mid-eighties it goes wow and it goes flying up, you know, like this.
Bromberg:Which of these AJP papers?
Horne:Yeah. Theres a volume. I think Ballantine is the Editor. Its at least fifteen years old now. Its a green paperback, 8 1/2 by 11 size. Its a collection of the key papers in this foundation business. It might be called — You havent seen this?
Bromberg:I didnt know about this.
Horne:The whole foundations of quantum mechanics. Let me get you this. You should take a look at this book.
Horne:Turn it off for a second.
Bromberg:Yeah. [recorder turned off, then back on...]
Horne:So theres 85, and we saw that this meeting was going to take place in Finland on the 50th anniversary of EPR, so Anton and I said, Gee, it would be fun to go to that. But what can we present, right? Because we havent been doing any two-particle stuff, what could we do that would be — And so we said, I wonder if there is something about — you know, I had been telling him about two-particle quantum mechanics, you know, of the simplest variety, where each of your two systems only possesses a two-dimensional state space, right? Two states, and whats an entangled state is this one goes with that one and then this one goes with that one thats entanglement. All the examples that we did with Clauser and everybody were so-called polarization where its up-down, right? So Anton and I said, I wonder if there is something we could do that would be a fusion of what we currently do. And we were looking at this diamond, and that old stuff, right? And we said, Well, up-down in the old days, left to right, up goes with up, down goes with down, and we need two diamonds! And this path is connected to that one and this one is connected to that one. So hey, so we started thinking about what came to be known to us as a two-particle interferometer. This source in the middle emits a pair of particles — and youre told that the two members of the pair go opposite. Right? Thats the nature of this emitter.
Horne:It emits pairs that go opposite. But classically you say, Oh that means either they go along those two legs of the diamonds or they go along those two legs of the diamonds as they retreat from each other.
Horne:But quantum mechanics says thats not what really happens. They go both this way and that way. So thats our entanglement. But its entanglement of particles as they just travel through space, not something subtle, like the up-down or anything of polarization. So thats where the double diamond came to be, and we called it the two-particle interferometer. So we played with it for about an afternoon just on paper, and we saw that it was completely analogous — not surprisingly — to a Bell or Bohm or you know a standard polarization entanglement.
Bromberg:Now you had been deeply involved in that stuff at one point. Had he also?
Horne:No, he had not been involved in it, but we both sat there together and we just said, Look. The two-particle quantum mechanics? Weve been doing one particle for fifteen, for ten years. Whats the connection? Can we make our connection between this one-particle quantum game we keep playing, and this? or Can we make a connection between that and this old stuff that I used to do. And it just, boom, it became that, right?
Bromberg:Yeah. And I should tell the tape that this and that means one diamond versus two diamonds.
Horne:Yeah. Two diamonds. So we worked it through and we found out that such an arrangement — we didnt know how to actually produce one at the lab, because we didnt know where to get a source that would emit pairs of particles in opposite directions.
Bromberg:Yeah, I noticed you were talking about positronium annihilation and —
Bromberg:You didnt think of cascades, atomic cascades?
Horne:We thought about cascades, but cascades dont have the desired oppositeness direction to them.
Bromberg:Oh. Okay.
Horne:The cascades are very fuzzy. That is, the particle goes this way and the other one can go anywhere over here with some distribution, right?
Bromberg:I see.
Horne:We wanted something that really was — But what we didnt know about was down conversion. We didnt know about that.
Bromberg:Yes. Which the optical community was at that point really beginning to.
Horne:And they were — completely unknown to us and vice versa. We didnt know about them; they didnt know about us. They were moving towards producing pairs of just the sort we were thinking about there on our piece of paper. So anyway, we gave the talk in Finland and people liked it. They thought it was interesting to see this —
Horne:That was 85. That year Danny had a meeting in the World Trade Center. Danny had a nice meeting. There must have been a couple hundred of us there, you know foundations of quantum mechanics. Theres a nice publication for that, and its also green.[4]
Bromberg:Yeah, and Ive seen that.
Horne:Right. By the way thats the same green paperback, same color as the other book I told you to look for. Its that same — this Ballantine is also that same dark green. We were all sitting there listening to the talks, and two people there talked about down conversion — [Yanhua] Shih and —
Bromberg:Not the Mandel group?
Horne:I think the Mandel group might have been there too, but I think there were at least two groups there that talked about down conversion, but we were just, you know, we didnt pay any attention. They actually were talking about sources that were just the kind we wanted, but we just glazed over and werent paying enough attention. Anyway, so it wasnt until 87 that I happened to drop back by Shulls lab one day, some Tuesday, and there was a stack of Phys. Rev. Letters lying there that I hadnt looked at, months old most of them, and I was thumbing through one of them, and on one page I saw this picture that was a diamond inside a bigger diamond.
Horne:Right. And it was the picture from Ghosh and Mandels paper. And I said, Gee, thats our figure where you just unfold it, you know, have them opposite each other instead on top of each other, and make them the same size instead of one littler than the other? I said, See, theyre doing our experiment. There it is, right there. Theyre doing two-particle interference. So we had an idea independently of the whole world, but the whole world got without ever needing us, right? You know the [unintelligible word] two-particle interferometer. I wrote Mandel after seeing that paper and sent him my little paper from Finland, and he wrote back and says, Your approach is very simple, very clear. Id looked at — they had a paper where they talked about their theoretical underpinnings and what led them to do this experiment, and it was typically a 10- or 20-page Phys. Rev. Paper, heavy machinery —
Bromberg:Lot of annihilation operators.
Horne:Lots of annihilation. It was just like I couldnt even read it. I didnt even know what it was about, most of it? But our discussion was half a page. Well, we had exactly the same final result, we said it behaves just like they said it behaves, but our way of discussing it was just extraordinarily simple. And so he urged us to publish it. He said, This is so much simpler than the way we describe it, you should publish it, and then he turned out to be the referee, you know.
Bromberg:By the way, do you keep letters like that, like the one he —?
Horne:It might have been on the phone. It might have been on the phone. Anyway, so thats the 89 paper with Abner [Shimony] and Anton [Zeilinger] called Two-Particle Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Letters.[5] You know, its sort of like the horse is already out of the barn. Theres the Ghosh-Mandel, which is actually a real experiment. All were doing is just talking about it. And we pointed out that its a complete analog to the old polarization versions and that therefore Bells theorem applies. And subsequently Mandel and various other groups that had down conversion sources actually did some Bell experiments, you know.
Bromberg:Did James Franson enter into this whole thing?
Horne:Yes, and about that time — sometime in there — we saw Fransons proposal, which was really quite remarkable because his was an ingenious new type of entanglement. Right? Whereas ours was just this direction is entangled with that one and this one with that one, right? His was, if you have a pair — [phone interruption; recorder turned off, then back on...] Franson imagined a situation where the two particles of the down conversion source dont ever come together. Theres just one branch going out one way and the other going out the other way, but each of those branches has two routes to get to the end of it — a long route and a direct route. So classically you could say, Lets catch the particle simultaneously at the end of these branches. Lets catch them classically. They were produced at the same time. These down conversion particles are produced at the same time, so if you catch them at the same time you know its a pair and it was produced at the same time. Classically you could say, Well, if I catch them at the same time, that means both of them must have gone the long route through their respective branches — or the quick route through their branches.
Horne:But quantum mechanically its not either this or that; its the old both and again, right? So there was a new type of interferometer, two-particle interferometer, but is completely different than the one we have described. Which were alternative routes. These are alternative routes where they never came back together, right? Now I liked that paper. Thats a great paper, the Franson paper.
Bromberg:Did that interact at all with what you were doing or it was just a nice paper that was —?
Horne:No, it opened my eyes to that there must be lots of variations, that is there must be many ways to have these simple entanglements. Once we had broken out of the idea that a simple entanglement doesnt have to be a polarization entanglement. You know, that you can have simple entanglements that are spatial, and then Franson shows theres another way to have a simple spatial entanglement. It was a very exciting time, the late eighties, when I saw these various ways of making new kinds of entanglements. So anyway, you see our role of getting back into more than one particle, you know after, ten years of neutrons, was a conference paper in Finland that had no real effect. It had no real effect on anybody. Then the quantum optics people a few years later actually were doing the experiment, and then variations of it started popping up. And then so by 1990 there must be five or six groups around the world easily doing down conversion interference experiments.
Bromberg:And Shih was certainly doing a lot of interesting stuff.
Horne:And Shih was in there too, but he was in there from the beginning, right?
Bromberg:Well, from about the late eighties, because he just got his degree in the late eighties.
Horne:I think he was a —
Bromberg:He was a Carroll Alley student and I think he just —
Horne:I think it might have been Alley that was talking at Dannys meeting in 85. Remember I said there were several people who —?
Horne:In retrospect we now know we were talking about experiments that use down conversion, but we didnt notice. Yeah, I think that Alley — and Shih might have been involved with it — I think they did a Wheeler delayed choice experiment that they described at Dannys meeting, and I think the source was down conversion.
Bromberg:They certainly were working with down conversion from the start, those guys.
Bromberg:So somehow these two independent lines, neutron interferometry and optical, are really coming together in a way in which youre reading each others stuff and getting ideas from each other it sounds like.
Horne:Thats right, yes. Thats right. In other words we were totally unaware of the trajectory that the quantum optics people were following in the middle of the eighties. We just werent paying attention and werent reading journals.
Bromberg:Even Abner Shimony wasnt paying attention?
Horne:Mm-mm [negative]. It was completely separate. So that brought us back. So now we have double interests. We are still pursuing our one-particle neutron interference experiments, although by this time they are starting to run their course. There are not many new ideas for hey, lets do this with them. Anton continued after he — he continued and did some experiments with neutrons, single-particle neutron interference at Grenoble, and then since then in the last ten years, five years back in Vienna hes continued to pursue single-particle interference with atoms.
Bromberg:Mm-hm [affirmative]. Right, right.
Horne:He wasnt the first. I think Dave Pritchard at MIT and some of his —
Bromberg:Clauser did some atom interferometry.
Horne:Yeah. Later he did an atom too. There are several groups that have done atoms, but I remember it was in the late eighties that we first, when Anton and I were still hanging around MIT, we visited Pritchard and his student then was named Martin and they had a beautifully functioning atom interferometer. So it was just the two-route game again just like with the neutrons but these were atoms. Anton has pursued that nonstop ever since. He went on to do a — he built his own atom interferometer and did a lot of experiments over the past five years. And then recently he did a bucky ball interferometer.
Horne:Right. The particle that takes two routes is actually sixty or seventy carbon atoms, he did both types. It was together in a hollow sphere. It was a giant molecule.
Bromberg:I have a vague knowledge of it. I dont have a clear —
Horne:Its seventy carbon atoms all lumped together to make a hollow ball.
Horne:Thats the particle that now is going through the interferometer.
Bromberg:Its really extraordinary. You know I noticed that hes part of some European group in this — theres a recent volume that they put out on quantum information that I think Zeilinger is one of the editors of, and there is this European commission group to look at stuff like this. It sounds as if the European governments are interested in looking at this so that if it becomes a technology theyll have some leg up on it.
Bromberg:Does his belonging to a group like that have any influence on your collaboration or ?
Horne:No. We still talk regularly. We havent jointly published any papers for about three or four years.
Bromberg:What Im really wondering is whether belonging to a group like that might push him towards applications and because you two are then linked it might be pushing you in any direction or another.
Horne:Well, since about 1990 when the more than two-particle entanglements came on the scene — which we didnt quite get to —
Bromberg:Thats right. Were not up to that yet.
Horne:So maybe I should try to get to that. So we got back to two particles starting in 85, Anton and I did, and then we saw that the quantum optics people were already there, you know, at least two years later and actually doing the experiments. Sometime in about those years, like 88 or something, Danny asked one day — I think it was sitting right here [in Hornes kitchen] with Anton — he says, Do you think there would be something interesting with three particles that are entangled? Would there be any difference, something new to learn with a three-particle entanglement? You know, and so he was thinking of a polarization version, and of course immediately I started saying three diamonds, you know like from Mitsubishi. Because I always like to keep going back to space and stay away from polarization, right? So thats the first time — sometime around there is the first time I did the three diamonds.
Bromberg:Why do you like to keep away from polarization?
Horne:Well just because I, you know, as Feynman said, the ultimate mystery, the only mystery of quantum mechanics is the two-slit interference experiment.
Bromberg:Which is space?
Horne:And thats, you know, its equivalent. But if you talk to people, you know if you talk to general students or something like that where I teach, and you want to tell them any of these stories, polarization is sort of like huh? you know, Spin? What? They dont know what that is. But you know, did the particle go through this hole or did it go through that hole? So anyway, Danny said, What if I considered more than two? What about three or four. Would there be something new there, something interesting? And I think Anton and I encouraged him to pursue it, and he started working on it and he worked on it for like a year, part of the time here, part of the time on a sabbatical in Europe close to Anton. I wasnt intimately involved. Anton was probably closer involved but not actually working on it. He would talk to him occasionally. Danny would report back sometime over that year things like, I have a Bells theorem without inequalities is the way he put it. I can prove Bells theorem without inequalities. Prior to that he was reporting things like, Inequalities are popping out all over, right? And in between those two moments, between inequalities are popping out all over and I have a Bells theorem without inequalities at all, he began to suspect that the incompatibility that was working here between the Einstein point of view, tried out in a three-particle or four-particle context, the incompatibility is closer to the surface. You know, that its not as hard to exhibit as it, say, was at Bells original theorem.
Bromberg:So when you guys were talking around this table here were you already thinking that with three particles you could cast some light on Bells theorem?
Horne:Oh, no, no.
Bromberg:That was just Greenberger.
Horne:No, he didnt have particularly in mind an improved or a different version of the Bell theorem. He just said, I wonder if anything interesting happens with three-particle — it could have been just purely a quantum mechanical question. You know, What are the details of quantum mechanical entanglement for three particles? with no particular regard to adding a new chapter to the Bell story. But what he actually found out was that he could prove the incompatibility of the Einstein point of view in the context of a three-particle entanglement. He could prove it quicker and shorter and sweeter than say the original Bell proof. And he said we should write it up. And I said well you know — He started writing and hed get up to thirty pages and hed say, I have thirty pages and I still dont have it all in there. Because Anton and I kept saying, Well we have lots of other little pieces that we should put together if we are going to write a paper. We just kept sitting on it. Nothing ever came out. We never wrote anything. And then one day Abner — Abner probably told you this story —
Bromberg:No, he didnt.
Horne:One day Abner went out, one day in 89 or sometime, I was with Abner at BU talking about something — down conversion probably, because by then we were very excited about down conversion — and he said, Oh by the way, whats this thing you and Danny and Anton have proven? And I said, Well, what thing? And he says, Well, and he showed me this [N. David] Mermin article that was in Physics Today or something. And I said, Oh. How did he know about that? And it turned out that Danny had talked about the new three-particle, simpler way of proving Bells theorem at George Mason University, and then he talked about it again at some talk in Europe, and people heard it. Right? Some people in England, I think that his name was Redhead.
Bromberg:Yeah. Michael Redhead.
Horne:Yeah, Michael Redhead heard it, and Mermin heard about it either directly or indirectly from somebody, and they looked at it and said, Wow, this is a revolutionary breakthrough. So its clear we needed to write something, right? Because everybody was commenting on it. People were commenting on something that had never been published, including in Physics Today. So you know like Mermin had a column or he has a column in the magazine. So we decided to get Abners help, because I said well, if were going to write this up, I decided, I convinced them that I had some pieces in mind, pieces back from 1969 that were never published. Specifically a step-by-step self-contained discussion of how EPR — you know, sentences that you can quote from Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen — lead you, you know, you cant avoid, getting to the form of theory that Bell was contemplating, you know hidden variable theory, and then shoving in the contradiction in the original Bell fashion. That had never been written or published anyplace, the detailed look at the EPR paper and youre led to Bell, right? You know, its spelled out in detail, good for a sophomore. So we decided to put that in, and because it was going to involve so much Bell physics we decided — and since Abner was the worlds resident authority on Bell physics — we decided to get Abner to join in our write-up. So instead of just Danny and Anton and I writing up this unpublished stuff the four of us wrote it up. And thats the 1990 American Journal of Physics paper.[6]
Horne:Called Bells Theorem Without Inequalities. And that has several parts to it. One is a review of how EPR leads to these hidden variable theories, a review of Bells way of showing that it cant be done, then Dannys new proof in the context of four [particles]. He originally did it with four. Then we pointed out that it could equally well be done with three, and then when we switched to three we switched from polarization to space so we could exhibit the Mitsubishi triple diamond, right? Gives us a chance to put that out there. And then Abner put in a section about, is a new experiment called for. What we really felt was no, you know. I mean, the experiment had already been done that shows that you cant have these elements of reality and you dont need an extra particle to show you cant have them. That was a point of some controversy. A lot of people outside of our group kept thinking, Gee, this really means we can do a better experiment, but Ive never been convinced of that. Because the proof of incompatibility is so brief youd think that would mean you can do a better experiment, but I dont think that follows. Right?
Bromberg:I see.
Horne:Oh, I should mention theres a whole world out there of what we call loophole busting. That is, there are all these people who just say, You know, I can still keep the Einstein point of view in the face of quantum mechanics because your detectors dont count all the particles, and I can come up with this pathological scheme.
Horne:So one of the things that people had in mind was maybe the three particles would be a better way of blocking some of the loopholes. And people are still contemplating that. In fact Danny and I currently are working on something along those lines.
Bromberg:Are those people who dont feel that theres been closure yet on the Bell theorem, is that kind of a lunatic fringe or is that quite a serious group of physicists or how do you —?
Horne:My personal feeling is its closer to the first. In the quantum mechanics, the quantum mechanical predictions for these multi-particle entanglements are confirmed to like ten standard deviations beyond where the cutoff point is. But you know, you can come up with these pathological things where all kinds of screwball things happens because you dont count all the particles, and if you strain hard enough you can say, Look. You havent shot down the Einstein point of view yet.
Bromberg:Yeah, okay.
Horne:Its not a field Im particularly interested in.
Bromberg:Now Im a little confused because — By the way, have you eaten what you need?
Horne:No, I think the juice ought to help me, and I can give us a sandwich in a second. So what was your —? Something confusing?
Bromberg:When is the GHZ paper, the one that everyone refers to? Thats not the one you were just talking about?
Horne:Thats the first published version, and its actually GHZ and Shimony.
Bromberg:Oh. Okay.
Horne:Danny wrote and put Anton and my name on a paper for that George Mason proceedings. Theres a meeting at George Mason and he put out a little paper. That one had circulated a little bit, but its not very clear.
Bromberg:No, its not. Thats the one in the volume edited by Kafatos I think.[7]
Horne:Yes. Right.
Bromberg:Yes. And it wasnt very clear and — I mean at least when I read it.
Horne:Right, yeah, that paper doesnt do a lot for me.
Bromberg:And I wondered whether you got much reaction to that paper because I had trouble with it.
Horne:Well it didnt have any circulation, you know, because it was just a conference. I dont know whether it was one that Mermin saw or Redhead saw it. I think Mermin said he had just heard Danny talk once. So, as far as the GHZ paper, there is none, except that George Mason conference paper.
Horne:We did later, say in 93, we wrote, we tried to describe, several of these developments, you know, the three-particle GHZ way of proving Bells point, and also talking about some of these really remarkable two-particle experiments that were made possible by down conversion. So we wrote a Physics Today article, a news article. Thats in 93. It was called Multi-Particle Interference, right, and it had a few — it mentioned some Bell stuff in passing, but it wasnt just Bell physics. See, youve got to remember, I thought Bell physics was done in 1974 or 73. I wasnt ever particularly interested in pursuing Bell physics anymore. When Danny kept saying after that year, playing with three, Hey, Bells inequalities are popping out all over, or Hey, I can prove the incompatibility without inequality at all, to tell the truth I sort of glazed over. You know, its a lot of, Oh, thats good. You can work that out.
Bromberg:I see. [laughs]
Horne:In other words, the first person who really said, Wow, this really is — You know, Danny couldnt clearly present it as something revolutionary. Danny wrote that George Mason thing. The first person who actually trumpeted it was Mermin. Mermin said, Wow, look at this! He paid more attention to it than I did. So that takes us from
Bromberg:Were sort of up to the Physics Today paper of 93 right now.[8]
Horne:Now so the next thing that came up that I was involved in with Anton was, Can we actually make in the lab a three-particle entanglement? Right? Thats what we talked about a lot all through the early and mid-nineties, Can we actually make one? Is it possible to produce one on a tabletop? And so I think thats the last paper that I wrote that I co-authored with Anton. I think its 98. Its called Three-Particle Entanglement? The content — I dont know the title — is how to produce a three-particle entanglement in the laboratory. A proposal for making three-particle entanglements. I dont know exactly the title. And then a year or two later they actually carried it out.
Bromberg:In his lab.
Horne:In his lab. Right. But I wasnt part of that, because I wasnt over there involved in the experiment or anything, but I was involved in the proposal as to how to do it. And then thats basically it.
Bromberg:And youre also interested in the physical origins of entanglement. Isnt that something that you worked on?
Horne:Yeah. Well, yeah.
Bromberg:At what point is the entanglement occurring?
Horne:Yeah, well, thats one way to put it. The question that weve often asked is, Who ordered this? — as Rabi used to say about some experiments fifty years ago with molecular beams and theyd get a surprising result and he would say to his collaborators, Who ordered this? when they saw this surprising result. Ive always liked that expression. Why did things behave this way?
Horne:And thats not a very — Not many people think that thats a worthwhile question.
Horne:In other words, I think most people say, Well, we know the quantum mechanical rules. The rules contain this aspect. Namely that entanglements can exist, right? And we know the quantum mechanical rule. Its called superposition principle. Right? And thats what leads to these entanglements. You realize that entanglement is nothing but the superposition principle applied to a more-than-one-particle system.
Bromberg:Right, right.
Horne:Thats all it is.
Bromberg:This combination of states or that combination of states.
Horne:So somebody says, Well so why do we have this? and theyd say well, Superposition principle. You add these things together. And you know, Feynman says in his lectures that thats the only mystery.
Bromberg:Yeah, but Feynman was content to live with that mystery.
Horne:Thats right. He goes on to say, You cant answer it. He says the only mystery is the two-slit experiment, and that just means the only mystery is the superposition principle. Thats the only thing about — thats the heart of quantum mechanics is that Thou shalt add these amplitudes and you dont add probabilities, right? You add these amplitudes.
Bromberg:But it seems to me that —
Horne:And he said, Dont ask whats behind it. You wont find an answer as to why its like that. Its just thats the way it is. So when someone asks the question, when someone considers the question I just described, most people would say theyre not sympathetic to that question. And by the way I have no answers. But it just sort of struck me as something — and it strikes Anton the same way — that there must be a reason. There must be some deep reason why these sort of strange linkages are a necessary part of the world. I mean, why do they link up like this? That glosses over the, that theory glosses over that. The answer is superposition principle. So what were asking is, Well then why the superposition principle? And most physicists dont quantum mechanics would say, Well, youre not going to answer that question. Its just thats the rules. You see what youre dreaming of is deriving quantum mechanics. Right?
Bromberg:Yeah. Is it deriving from quantum mechanics or understanding at what point —? I dont know. Does it —?
Horne:At what point does it have to show itself. Yeah.
Bromberg:At what point does the entanglement —
Horne:Have to show itself, right? Yes.
Bromberg:And whats the physical thing thats correlating the two? That seems to be a question physicists would be willing to entertain.
Bromberg:Thats what I thought you were doing in that experimental metaphysics volume that was I guess one of the volumes dedicated to Shimony.
Horne:Right. What was my paper in there?
Bromberg:I thought you were trying to understand what was the origins of entanglement inside a crystal. I dont have any notes on it here, but as I remember it you had various sources within this crystal because it had finite dimensions that were
Horne:Oh yes. Oh, oh, I know that paper.[9] Oh, yes. Oh, I think thats a very nice paper. Nobody knows much about it. Frankly nobody knows that paper. Yeah. I imagine that every spot in the source, every spot is a source of radiation, sort of like Huygens, right, you know? Every spot on the previous wave front is the source of another little wavelet. Except in that paper I was imagining that every spot in the source material, in the source medium, is a source of pairs of spherical waves. Right? Two-concentric wavelets coming out.
Horne:If you then sum over the whole source, you know to see what the total output will be from all of those little sources, you derive momentum conservation. In other words, if the incident radiation thats stimulating the medium comes in this way, then when the two particles are produced out of all of these wavelets adding together, if this one goes off at 15 degrees that way, this one will be going off at 15 degrees this way. Right? If this one goes off at 20 degrees, this one will come off at 20 degrees. So I was struck that by using a sort of a two-particle Huygens construction. I could derive conservation of the momentum, right? I was deriving it, right? And thats classical physics, but I was deriving it from a bunch of little wavelets.
Bromberg:In fact the whole thing that really was striking me about that paper and one other is that there is no wave particle duality somehow in what youre doing. The waves and the particles are so meshed in conception that you are sort of moving back and forth from wave to particle without —
Horne:Exactly. I never appreciated this duality. Its just like quantum mechanics says there is nothing but these waves as far as your basic machinery and what youve got to calculate, and then you just use those amplitudes at the end to say, Well, will I catch a particle here? or Will I catch one there? or Whats the probability of catching one here or there? So I get your point. Theres nothing there except these little amplitude wavelets, right, and then just add them up together. I sort of liked that paper, but Ive never done anything with it. I doubt if anybody has ever seen it or it did anything for anybody.
Bromberg:[Asks about Yenhua Shihs bi-photon concept] — I never understood where that fits in the way in which people think about these things, whether this is just a little bee in his bonnet that is not generally thought about or whether its a really important idea that everybody picks up on.
Horne:Well, it struck me as a valid way of describing entanglements. Its just a verbal way of capturing what we were already reviewing a while ago, that an entanglement is — system A has this state times system B has this other state, plus another product like that, right? Or its, like I said, its just superposition. Now when a pair of particles have that kind of a state, neither one separately has a state. Right?
Bromberg:Yeah, right. Absolutely.
Horne:In other words its just there and you say, Whats the state of those two things over there? and youd say, Its this superposition, right, Its this superposition. Well whats the state of just the object thats the one over on the left? It doesnt have a state. Right? So I think when Shih says you cant speak of these as two objects, its just one object, its just another way of saying that, right? In other words you know the — I was always very sympathetic to his wanting to emphasize that repeatedly. It seemed to be a valid way to present it verbally. Its sort of like his version of — youve already run into my favorite, is both and as opposed to either or. Right? You know, that is, whether you are doing one particle or two particles in quantum mechanics what the superposition principle says — and the superposition principle is all the entanglement is, right? — what it says is, unlike classical where you have either this happen or that happen, what quantum mechanics says is that they actually both happen. Right? Simultaneously. That seems to be what she is saying. In other words I didnt see it as a variable menace and groundbreaking insight into learning new things about entanglement; its just his verbal way of stressing how strange they are.
Horne:Its his way of describing them, right? Its a single thing, you would say.
Bromberg:Im going to ask you one final question. The quantum optics people were using this whole mechanism. We already talked about it; that derives from Roy Glauber, with annihilation operators and such. As your two fields began to interact, did the neutron people also begin to use all these?
Horne:No. No, because —
Bromberg:Because neutrons dont get annihilated and —?
Horne:The quantum mechanics we did with neutrons was the most elementary variety of wave mechanics. You know, that is, the propagation of the single neutron through the contraption you had set up for it in the lab was just described by a single scalar wave, you know, an amplitude really — a quantum mechanical amplitude — and its physical interpretation is the square of it in any spot is proportional to the probability of finding the particle there. Just a standard Born interpretation of a quantum wave. So that was the extent of our quantum mechanics, right? It was just, thats all we needed were these waves. There was no sophisticated annihilation machinery, right? There were no operators like in quantum optics. None of this heavy machinery was needed for all the things we did. We could get a complete account of the experiments with just this simple, elementary way of working. So then when we started talking about pairs, both originally on our own but then later saw the quantum optics people were doing pairs, we personally from our background didnt see any need for the heavy-duty calculus. I have a notebook from the late eighties where I went through like a half a dozen of the [Yanhua] Shih and Mandel experiments, and I would use my simple little way of calculating the final formulas. And Id get all the same formulas, right? So I could show just by example after example. I didnt need this machinery to get to the same answers. So I not only dont use it, I dont need it for the things I try to do. Now I dont know how far that might go. I might hit a wall sometime, right? I might hit a wall and say, Gee, I cant go any farther unless I adopt the heavier machinery. But I never ran into it as far as I got that I needed it. And also Im not an expert on it. You know, so its fortunate that I didnt need it because I didnt know much about it.
Bromberg:Well, if you needed it you would become expert on it so you dont have to worry about that. Well good, thats the end of my questions for today.
Horne:So you had asked earlier how was it doing physics at Stonehill, and I think its been perfect for me, given my temperament. After I finished grad school and had the opportunity to have that really great thesis topic, because, of Abner, then I needed a job. And Bob Cohen, as chairman of the physics department at the time, got lots of letters from people in the neighborhood in Eastern Massachusetts. You know, in small colleges when they had an opening they would often just send a letter to department chairmen in the area, you know, at big universities like BU or Northeastern or Brandeis. So Bob Cohen got such a letter from the then only physicist at Stonehill, which was Chet Raymo, and said, Gee, this looks like it might be a good place for you to look for a job. So I went down and interviewed and got that job. Do you know Chet Raymo?
Bromberg:No. I know the name Raymo, but not Chet.
Horne:He was the physics teacher there in the sixties, and he wanted to do other things and so he talked the administration into hiring me and I would do the physics and he could continue to do things that he wanted to do more, which was write, write popular books on nature and teach students about writing and he ended up writing a column in the science section of the Boston Globe. Its been going out for twenty-five years.
Horne:So Chet Raymo was the physicist at Stonehill and hired me so he could do the things he was more interested in.
Bromberg:But I mean you dont have to teach like four courses a term?
Horne:I do.
Bromberg:And its not exhausting?
Horne:I did it ever since 1970, so Ive now been doing it thirty-two years. I was teaching general physics, one for math and chemistry and one for biology, and I was free in my third course to do whatever I wanted. Often Ive taught courses for general interest, you know general students, about quantum mechanics or about relativity or about both. Or occasionally I would do an intermediate course for somebody who wanted to do some physics beyond general physics and do something at the intermediate level. Okay, there was no major. And I very diligently never started one, right? So I thought it was good for me to not have the politics of a high-pressure university physics department working over me, you know, where you know you have to produce or you dont get tenure. And for me it was best to — I had my friends, Anton and Danny and Cliff Shull and Abner, and they were all connected to major, you know, bigger places, but they were my contacts to the real world of physics and its been perfect for me. Ive been involved in some, what I thought were exciting developments in foundations of quantum mechanics. But I was never under any pressure, you know. I taught at this school where I didnt have any majors. I was just a service department teaching general physics for the chemistry students and the biology students, but I didnt have any students.
Bromberg:How big is that school? How come they have no majors?
Horne:Well, it was a couple of thousand students, and to have a real physics department I think you need at least four or five professors to start an undergraduate physics major program, and I just didnt think — you know, there were enough physics major programs in the country. If occasionally a student came and said, Gee, I just really like physics after taking your course, I would say, Well, you should go somewhere else. Id just tell them, You should transfer, switch to another school. So its been perfect for me — a low-pressure place where I was the physics department. Right? So it couldnt have been better.
Thats interesting.
[1] Proposed Neutron Interferometer Observation of the Sign Change of a Spin or Due to 2 Precession reprinted as Ch. 6 in Abner Shimony, Search for Naturalistic World View, Vol. II.
[2] U. Bonse and H. Rauch, eds., Neutron Interferometry: Procedings 5-7 June 1978 at the Institute of Physics non Laue-Langevich, Grenoble (Clarendon Press, 1979)
[3] P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, (World Scientific Publishers, Singapore, 1985).
[4] Daniel M. Greenberger, ed., New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory in Annals of the New York, Academy of Science, Vol.480 (1986)
[5] Physical Review Letters, 62 No.19 ( 8 May 1989), 2209-2212.
[6] Bells Theorem Without Inequalities, American Journal of Physics 58 No.12 (Dec. 1990) 1131-1143.
[7] Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne and Anton Zeilinger, Going Beyond Bills Theorem in M. Kafaloo, ed., Bells Theorm, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), 09-72.
[8] Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne and Anton Zeilinger, Multiparticle Interferometry and the Superposition Principle, Physics Today (August 1993), 22-29.
[9] Michael A. Horne, Two-Particle Diffraction, in Robert S. Cohen et.al, Experimental Metaphysics (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997) Vol. 193 of Boston Studies in the Philosopher of Science 109-119.


text:
About Schools in Virgilina, VA
Contact a Coldwell Banker® real estate agent to learn more about the schools and school districts in Virgilina, VA.FIND AN AGENT
Virgilina, Virginia is located in Halifax County. Nearby cities and towns include Cluster Springs, Riverdale, Clarksville, Stovall, South Boston, Scottsburg, Roxboro, Halifax, Mountain Road, Oxford, Clover, Boydton, Rougemont, Milton, Stem, and Chase City. Virgilina is a rural community with a population of 152. The median household income is $46,606. In Virgilina, 59% of residents are married, and families with children reside in 18% of the households. Half the population of Virgilina commutes 30 minutes or less to work, with 40% of residents holding white collar jobs and 60% residents holding blue collar jobs. The median age of homes in Virgilina, VA is 41 years, with 58% of those homes owned, 20% rented, and 21% not occupied.
Contact a Coldwell Banker® real estate agent to learn more about the schools and school districts in Virgilina, VA.FIND AN AGENT
See if your personality and goals are right for real estate.SEE ALL REAL ESTATE CAREERS
Community information and market data Powered by Onboard Informatics. Copyright ©2015 Onboard Informatics. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
This information is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be relied on in making any home-buying decisions. School information does not guarantee enrollment. Contact a local real estate professional or the school district(s) for current information on schools. This information is not intended for use in determining a person's eligibility to attend a school or to use or benefit from other city, town or local services.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bakhtin and Medieval Voices.
As Robert Sturges notes in his contribution to this collection, many medievalists have found that Bakhtin's theoretical work may be applied to medieval texts with a more startlingly literal relevance than to those texts, such as the novel, that constituted his own major object of inquiry. Concepts such as carnival and heteroglossia seem merely to create newly specific terms for aspects of medieval texts that scholars have long recognized. As work such as Alastair Minnis's has shown, the practices of medieval authorship, combining the activities of compilation, commentary, quotation, and revision, are inherently dialogic. Or, to put the formulation in its broadest terms, as does Aron Gurevich, quoted by Nancy Bradbury in another essay in this volume, 'the concepts of ambivalence and immanent dialogue are absolutely essential for understanding the whole of medieval culture' (p. 178). It is odd, then, to find Thomas J. Farrell, in introducing the collection, writing as though Bakhtin's work were still relatively pioneering territory for a few daring medievalists. The essays themselves are the measure of how far Bakhtin's ideas have become naturalized for critics of medieval literature. There is little here that is likely to be theoretically unfamiliar to medieval scholars, though perhaps not all will realize that Bakhtin's work is the conscious or unconscious source of such familiar critical approaches.
The ten essays are collected under three headings: 'Carnival Voices in Medieval Texts', 'Multiple Voices in Medieval Texts', and 'Dissenting Voices in Dialogue with Bakhtin'. Though the remit is European, the focus is emphatically English, and especially Chaucerian. Only two essays, Lisa Perfetti's on Helmbrecht and Jody McQuillan's on the sottie, are wholly concerned with non-English vernacular texts. (It is a pity that McQuillan's is the only essay on drama, since Antony Gash's well-known essay, 'Carnival Against Lent: The Ambivalence of Medieval Drama', published in 1986, showed how productive the concept of carnival could be for the analysis of theatrical performance.) Non-English texts, however, also feature in the essays by Andrew Taylor and Mark Sherman: Taylor's piece studies a Latin manuscript, the Smithfield Decretals, and Sherman takes Dante's Commedia as the central text within his concluding piece on 'Problems of Bakhtin's Epic: Capitalism and the Image of History'. Other contributors also address Latin or other vernacular cultures less directly by way of their approaches to English works.
Essays on non-Chaucerian English texts include Daniel Pinti's exposition of the centrality of the concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia to the activity of translation, via Gavin Douglas's Eneados; Robert Sturges's study of the role of manuscript commentary, using the Middle English pseudo-Augustinian soliloquies; Nancy Bradbury's analysis of 'Popular-Festive Forms and Beliefs in Robert Mannyng's Handlyng Synne'. In every case, both the material and the conceptual practices of medieval writing seem to respond readily to a Bakhtinian theorization. As Michael Camille's book-length study, Image on the Edge (London: Reaktion Books, 1992), demonstrated so clearly, Bakhtin offers a ready-made vocabulary for examining relations between the multiple voices that inhabit the manuscript page, with its characteristic combination of picture and text, both central and marginal.
The essays on Chaucer use the same broad brush, though those collected here are more literary-critical in approach than manuscript-oriented. Robert Jordan argues persuasively for understanding the presence of different voices within The Man of Law's Tale without recourse to the supposedly unifying framework of the teller's 'personality', while Thomas Farrell makes a rather less persuasive case for the monology of The Clerk's Tale. Steve Guthrie's piece is, I think, the best thing in the book, and might stand as paradigmatic of the best aspects of the collection taken as a whole. In a brilliantly original extension of Bakhtinian principles into the analysis of prosody, Guthrie explores the differences between Chaucer's and Gower's verse. Comparing The Book of the Duchess with its French sources, Guthrie demonstrates that the dynamic interchange between French and English cultures is a central experience of the poem for both the dreamer and the poet. Chaucer's response to Machaut is not a matter of mere borrowing or imitation, but a complex engagement with French on the part of English. Gower, on the other hand, experiences the domination of French as something of a literary and cultural impasse. 'Where Chaucer aimed at the interanimation of his languages', Guthrie argues, 'Gower labored to keep his separate, and the price he paid was the awkwardness and sober discipline of bilingualism in a situation in which fluency could be achieved only through the mirth and license of polyglossia' (p. 108).
Bakhtin can be used to allow dull criticism to masquerade as exciting. A sprinkling of his terminology can suggest that merely remarking on the presence of different languages or different voices in a text represents a theoretical discovery. It is where Bakhtin is used as Guthrie uses him, not merely to note the existence of plurality, but to explore the nature of that plurality and the cultural work it is performing, that his influence on critics, both medieval and otherwise, is at its most productive.
Reader Opinion
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
|Yearbook of English Studies
|Article Type:
|Book Review
|Jan 1, 1999
|Previous Article:
|Texts of the Passion: Latin Devotional Literature and Medieval Society.
|Next Article:
|Records of Early English Drama: Somerset.


text:
AirForces Monthly Magazine
5,000 - 10,000 downloadsAdd this app to your lists
+ By MagazineCloner.com
Brought to you by Key Publishing Ltd, Europe's Leading Aviation Publisher.
AirForces Monthly is the world's leading modern military aviation magazine featuring the world's air forces, their conflicts, weaponry and exercises. Published monthly, it provides the best military aviation news coverage from around the globe and is essential reading for anyone seeking a well-informed view. AirForces Monthly is entirely devoted to modern military aircraft and their air arms and, since 1988, has built up a formidable reputation worldwide by reporting from places not generally covered by other military magazines. Its world news is the best around, covering all aspects of military aviation, region by region.
AirForces Monthly represents an unrivalled combination of news, reporting and in-depth features aided by the best network of freelance reporters anywhere in the world. It is the finest dedicated military aviation magazine available.
Regular features include:
•Comprehensive coverage of the world's air forces
•The hottest military aviation news - by continent
•Military conflicts, weaponry and exercises
•Insights into the latest military technology
•Personnel interviews
•World exclusives
•Superb colour photography
•Regular special feature sections and supplements
And much, much more!
For more information, visit www.airforcesmonthly.com
Please note: Posters or wall planners included with the printed magazine are currently unavailable with the digital version.
This is a free app download. Within the app users can purchase the current issue and back issues.
Subscriptions are also available within the application. A subscription will start from the latest issue.
Available subscriptions are:
6 months (6 issues)
12 months (12 issues)
-The subscription will renew automatically unless cancelled more than 24 hours before the end of the current period. You will be charged for renewal within 24 hours of the end of the current period, for the same duration and at the current subscription rate for the product.
-You may turn off the auto-renewal of subscriptions through Google Play Account settings, however you are not able to cancel the current subscription during its active period.
Users can register for/ login to a pocketmags account in-app. This will protect their issues in the case of a lost device and allow browsing of purchases on multiple platforms. Existing pocketmags users can retrieve their purchases by logging into their account.
We recommend loading the app for the first time in a wi-fi area.
If you have any problems at all please do not hesitate to contact us: firstname.lastname@example.com
Published by Key Publishing Ltd. The entire contents of this title is © copyright 2011. All rights reserved.
Tags: air forces monthly, airforces monthly, air forces monthly magazine, airforces monthly magazine, air forces monthly 2011, air international mag. 2012 06, air forces monthly december 2010, air force monthly mag., airforces monthly magazine torrent, monthly magazine cover.
Login problems resolved.
General bug fixes
(42 stars)
Loaded to see what it was about "free issue" is with purchase. Sounds like an Obama sales pitch. I am a USAF veteran and was looking forward to seeing if this was worth getting.
(42 stars)
Working now after update. I wish Twitch will fix its app from crashing.
(42 stars)
Great app
(42 stars)
The only way to keep up with today's technology and politics. The best publication out there.
(42 stars)
Drops out a lot and if you have an ipad drops your subscription out
(42 stars)
Works quite well, but my internet died while uploading the August 2013 issue, and page didn't load. Do I have to uninstall and pay again just to get the front end of a P-8?
(42 stars)
It rudicolousneven with a subscription you have to buy older issues as a subsccriber you. Should have access to all issues complete ripoff


text:
Instant replay
Georgetown (1-1): For all the sizable hype about new big man Josh Smith, the Hoyas fortunes rely on their backcourt. After clanking one 3-pointer after another in the season opening loss to Oregon, guards Markel Starks and D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera buried early 3-pointers against upset-minded Wright State last Wednesday. With Smith playing only 17 minutes, the pair totaled 48 points and each nailed three 3's, as did freshman Reggie Cameron in Georgetown first win of the season. Factor in the aggressive Jabril Trawick and the Hoyas have one of the top guard units in the country. The real intrigue comes when the bigs and small are getting it done in the same game. That hasn't happened yet. No clue how defenses collapse around the 350-pound Smith, who will have an 80-100 point weight advantage against a single defender most games, if the perimeter shots are falling. Seeing as Georgetown lacks proven interior scoring besides Smith and opposing teams will surrender perimeter looks if given a choice, the guards must keep making them pay.
George Mason (3-0): Depth hasn't always been a good asset during Paul Hewitt's tenure with the Patriots. Using lots of players contributes to certain uneven performances. At least it has for the Fairfax crew over the past two seasons. Early in this campaign, having a deep bench has proven oh so helpful. Playing without three likely starters the Patriots defeated Northern Iowa 76-70 on Saturday thanks to Sherrod Wright's 23 points and Marko Gujancic's second straight double-double. That came after the short-handed roster won at Lamar on Tuesday. The Patriots are certainly better when guard Bryon Allen and forward Jonathan Arledge are healthy options. More size comes when center Erik Copes returns from his six-game suspension. For now, Hewitt can still go legitimately 8-9 deep until they do.
George Washington (3-0): Head coach Mike Lonergan might believe starting preseason practices early is a "terrible" idea. He can't complain about the initial results. The Colonials won both off their games last week, including Saturday's 80-74 comeback at Manhattan in which they overcame a nine-point halftime deficit. Wing guard Maurice Creek and forward Isaiah Armwood combined for 47 points, 10 more than the inside-outside duo scored in Tuesday's 108-81 rout over Maine. Offense proved challenging for Lonergan's squad last season, but the 108 points marked the program's most in regulation since 2000.
[RELATED: (PHOTOS) Len Bias would have turned 50 on Monday]
American (1-1): It's uncertain whether 5-foot-9 point guard Darius Gardner can actually dunk. It is however factual that the former Stephen F. Austin transfer stuffed the stat sheet in his first Eagles home game. In Saturday's 63-61 overtime win over UMBC, the junior played all 45 minutes and finished with 22 points, nine rebounds, four assists and six steals. The new big man on the Ward Circle campus, who of course goes by "Pee Wee," also forced overtime with a last second jumper as AU closed regulation on a 10-3 run. "We showed resiliency tonight," Eagles first-year Mike Brennan told media members postgame. "It is a good win for us.'Pee Wee' was big all night, showcasing his great decision making."
Player of the Week: Maurice Creek, George Washington
Last season the youthful Colonials showed all kinds of pluck, but the lack of outside shooting and backcourt experience often derailed late game efforts. In theory, adding the former Indiana transfer this offseason addressed both issues. In actuality, Creek has done exactly. In the rallying road win over Manhattan, Creek scored 24 of his 27 points in the second half thanks to five 3-pointers. The 6-foot-5 guard, whose career has been derailed by injuries, also grabbed six rebounds and sealed the win with six free throws in the closing minutes. Including the win earlier in the week over Maine, Creek finished 10 of 17 from beyond the arc. On the season, Creek leads the Colonials in scoring (19.3) and is perfect on 12 free throw attempts.
On Deck
Georgetown: Talk about your antsy bunch. Having barely enough time to unpack from the season opening trip to South Korea, the Hoyas are heading outside the mainland once again. The Puerto Rico Tip-off opens on Thursday as Georgetown plays three games in four days starting with Northeastern (1:30 p.m., ESPNU). Kansas State or Charlotte looms on Friday followed by the final game on Sunday against Michigan, VCU, Florida State or Long Beach State. Beyond winning the event, root for the draw to fall Georgetown's way, meaning RPI helpful opponents, meaning Kansas State followed by Michigan or VCU.
George Mason: The Patriots host St. Francis on Tuesday (7 p.m.) before playing their second road game of the young season at Iona on Saturday (2 p.m.)
George Washington: Back for their third game at the Smith Center this season, the Colonials host Delaware State on Tuesday (7 p.m.). From there we're talking about practice before the Wooden Legacy tournament in Southern California starting on November 28.
American: The first of four straight road games starts Wednesday against Ohio State (7:30 p.m., Big Ten Network), easily the Eagles most imposing foe this season. Gardner and crew then play at Mount St. Mary's on Saturday (4 p.m.)


text:
In Deep: Extended Scene 2
Hard up for cash, beefy Mack Manus needs to pay pizza stud Kieron Ryan. "I think we can work something out,†says the tall, light-skinned cutie. The two move closer and kiss, Kieron dropping down to take out Mack's juicy boner, sucking it deep as they rub each other's bods. Tan and smooth Mack frequently bends down for a kiss, whipping his slab on the sucker's mouth. Kieron slurps his nuts, then feeds Mack back. Low shots look up at the action, the two staring at each other as Mack devours the pierced cock. Mack then grabs Kieron's ass, diving his scruffy chin inside as he tongue fucks it. Mack kisses the back of Kieron's neck, then fucks him from behind. Low shots look up at Mack's big, tight balls and hairy muscle legs, the bottom's boner bobbing as he gets plowed. Kieron sits down on Mack, riding his shaft before the two release their wads.
Website: **********.titanmen.com/
Added: 23 Oct 12
Views: 5257


text:
Family Ice Skating. 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Burton Street Skating Rink. Weather permitting.
Winter Festival Art Show. 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. St. Peter's Parish Hall. Sponsored by Cazenovia Arts. Free admission.
Medallion Treasure Hunt and Pine Cone Craft. Noon to 4 p.m. Stone Quarry Hill Art Park. Combine creativity with nature and the arts in a pine cone handicraft or pick up clues at the Art Barn and get started on the Medallion Treasure Hunt. Hot chocolate served all afternoon in the Art Barn. Sledding and snowshoeing are offered if we have a winter wonderland. For more information, contact SQHAP at 655-3196, firstname.lastname@example.com or stonequarryhillartpark.org.
Hearts for Hope "Stuff in Fluff Workshop." 1 to 4 p.m. Common Grounds. Build a cuddly bear (Cost $15-$20). All proceeds to benefit the Carol M. Baldwin Breast Cancer Research Fund, Inc. Call Patrice Muller 525-1986 to preorder or for more information.
High School Winter Olympics. 1 p.m. High School Football Field. Snow volleyball, relays, sled race and more.
Snowflake Run. 1 p.m. Emory Avenue. 800-meter race around the Village Green sponsored by the Cazenovia Children's House. Register by Middle School at 12:30 p.m.
"Snow Snake" competition, Klondike Sled Races. 1 to 4 p.m. Sponsored by Boy Scout Troop 18. Near Scout lodge on Riverside Drive (behind library) weather permitting. Based on "Gawasa," a traditional Native American winter game. Three categories for sled races — youth, family, teen/young adult.
WinterFest Dance. 8 to 11 p.m. Cazenovia High School Gym. Students of Cazenovia High School and guests only. $3 admission.
The Snowball. 7 p.m. Brae Loch. To benefit Cazenovia Community Preschool. Live music featuring the Party Nuts. Hors d'oeuvres, raffles, silent auction, cash bar and more. Tickets $20 at Brae Loch or call CCP at 655-7234
An Evening with Guitarists Loren Barrigar and Mark Mazengarb. 8 p.m. Catherine Cummings Theatre at Cazenovia College. General Admission. $15 tickets available at the door. Special $3 admission for all high school students/college students with ID.
More like this story
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.


text:
MIT Geniuses Extract Audio From Potato Chip Bag And More
John Hopton for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online
Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) never fail to amaze, and now they have discovered how to identify sounds that have been made in a separate room purely from visual recordings of objects in that room, even if the video was taken through soundproof glass.
In partnership with Microsoft and Adobe researchers, the team has developed an algorithm that can reconstruct audio from videos of objects such as a bag of potato chips, aluminum foil, the surface of a glass of water and the leaves of a potted plant. The tiny vibrations in the surfaces of the objects, caused by sound waves, are invisible to the naked eye. But they can, with the right methodology and technology, be identified to enough of an extent to assess what sounds were made.
In a recent MIT statement, Abe Davis, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT and first author on the new paper, explained: "When sound hits an object, it causes the object to vibrate. The motion of this vibration creates a very subtle visual signal that's usually invisible to the naked eye. People didn't realize that this information was there."
Davis will attend Siggraph, the highly regarded computer graphics conference, to present the paper, which also involved Frédo Durand and Bill Freeman, both MIT professors of computer science and engineering; Neal Wadhwa, a graduate student in Freeman's group; Gautham Mysore of Adobe Research; and Michael Rubinstein of Microsoft Research, who did his PhD with Freeman.
An absorbing video explains how the frequency of the visual samples – the number of frames of video captured per second – needs to be higher than the frequency of the audio signal, and that the best results come from using a high speed camera which captures up to 6000 frames per second. However, even video from a smartphone, which produces something like 60 frames per second, can provide enough visual information from an object to give a reproduction of recognizable and useful sound that occurred close to it.
A simple melody is used to demonstrate the technique ("Mary Had a Little Lamb" may be stuck in the heads of anyone who has watched the video), but recordings of voices are also presented. In terms of practical applications, criminal and other kinds of forensic investigation spring immediately to mind – the high speed camera can give identifiable words spoken and the smartphone alone can lead to knowledge of "the gender of a speaker in a room; the number of speakers; and even, given accurate enough information about the acoustic properties of speakers' voices, their identities." A lot of information about the objects themselves can also be gained from the process in terms of structural properties and material behavior.
Davis explains that the team is "recovering sounds from objects. That gives us a lot of information about the sound that's going on around the object, but it also gives us a lot of information about the object itself, because different objects are going to respond to sound in different ways."
He also says that one pleasing aspect of science is that a technique may be applied in ways that those who discovered it never dreamed of. "I'm sure there will be applications that nobody will expect. I think the hallmark of good science is when you do something just because it's cool and then somebody turns around and uses it for something you never imagined. It's really nice to have this type of creative stuff."
SHOP NOW – GoPro Hero3: White Edition – (131′/ 40m Waterproof Housing)


text:
I'm desperately seeking tips that work for getting that carpet really clean. It's a short, fairly industrial carpet, thank goodness. I've been using the "nature's miracle" spray they sell at pet stores, but feel like there must be a better or homemade solution that will get the carpets really clean.
Or thoughts on the Eco-friendly-ness of steam cleaning carpet? This is the first place I've had with carpet and this is a new issue for me.


text:
Results 1 to 26 of 26
Thread: Update 24.11.2008 BOTTOM PAGE
April 19th, 2008 #1
Update 24.11.2008 BOTTOM PAGE
Hello concept art comunity...i ve waited long to post some things here,alot of great artists around
These are a few personal concepts i ve done
hope you like em..
- Similar Threads
- Art: Art dump [Big DL!] -- UPDATE @ bottom Page 2, 20 August!
- SketchBook: NightVision Sketchbook - update Oct 6th, 2008 - Pics only on page 4
- Art: Aloha(small update on bottom of page)
- Art: recent randoms (Another update at bottom) SPLASH page
- Girl avec mallet UPDATE at bottom of the page!
Last edited by jonone; November 24th, 2008 at 05:39 PM.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberApril 19th, 2008 #2
I think ur getting here to something, maybe all u need is try to get more detail in ur drawings and maybe try to describe better what they are, they look beautiful but they are hard to understand
I like ur composition and colors
April 20th, 2008 #3
really great stuff!
April 20th, 2008 #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25
- Thanks
- 1
- Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
- Follows
- 0
- Following
- 0
Number seven and eight are very well done I love the rendering on both of those. Great stuff overall but number eight just draws me in a lot more then the rest and makes my mind start churning over what could be happening in that scene.
April 20th, 2008 #5
awesome, i really love your space ships. the first two are pimp, are they digital or marker, i cannot tell, odd
good stuff man, good inspiring stuff to see in the morning :-D
Do not, ever, under any circumstances, not have fun.
April 20th, 2008 #6
im not quite sure i know what u mean
cheers i appreciate it
thx glad u like em
thx man
keep them crits coming so i know what to improve
April 21st, 2008 #7
some recent creatures...sry for the pic...not scaned them yet
April 23rd, 2008 #8
Love that wheel-less rail rider.
June 25th, 2008 #9
some updates
hope u likes em
June 26th, 2008 #10
your work reminds me of stephan martiniere...great stuff!
June 26th, 2008 #11
I really like the dynamic camera angles. Feels like you're really in the middle of a battle!
Come check out my site!
RachelCreates -Digital Life and Design
June 27th, 2008 #12
5th is my favorite, love em all, but this one had an epic feeling to it. Nice colors too!
"I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!"
June 27th, 2008 #13
5th picture down in the thread is my favourite so cool! Reminds me of Half Life: Episode 2!
June 27th, 2008 #14
thanks guys glad u like some of em
August 10th, 2008 #15
some recent stuff
August 10th, 2008 #16
Wow, this is pretty great work! Keep on posting... very inspiring!
"Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu" | SB | Portfolio | FJGC (blog) | DA (Profile) | EJERCICIOS DE COLOR
August 11th, 2008 #17
great stuff ,thanks for showing
When I was young, I could do all-nighters in my sleep.
August 11th, 2008 #18
GriNGo, thanks! i will as long as time permits!
goran, hope i can thanks
keep them crits coming
November 24th, 2008 #19
hello all
some of the images i ve done lately,personal and not(shipyard and the sub base copyright UbiSoft).
hope they dont look like shit,to dark to white..,becos of crap shit monitor calibration shit( sry it totaly pisses me off...i ve reached wits end with it,images now start showing dif in viewers then in ps,on same comp)) )hopefully with holidays coming ill get around to doing more stuff to show.
Anyway would appreciate some crits&comments and btw looking for some freelance gigs if any1 interested give a shout: email@example.com
November 24th, 2008 #20
Great work dude!! Loved your textures and mood on your paintings. I agree with illustratorwayne about what he said about your work reminding Martiniere, but I think you have some Sparth touch on it and that`s a huge compliment my friend! Congratulations!
November 24th, 2008 #21
Man, you really have some truly unique and awe inspiring environments. Very cool. Those arial fight scenes are nice, but your creature design is really one of a kind. Well done.
Futility ExpressedMy Website
My Sketchbook
My Deviant Art Account
November 24th, 2008 #22
Awesome works!!! cant wait to see more!!!
November 26th, 2008 #23
RicardoGuimaraes Thanks man i appreciate it
Duman,Benjamen Christ thanks guys!
bring in the critsssssss
December 1st, 2008 #24Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Posts
- 136
- Thanks
- 1
- Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
- Follows
- 0
- Following
- 0
fckg cool dude i love the enviroments
February 4th, 2009 #25
Damn man, these are gorgeous sketches. You've got a great sense of lighting, hoping to see more
February 5th, 2009 #26
woooow i love the sketches, the enviros, the robots and the creatures
all very nice
Obey the principle without being bound by it. LEARN, MASTER AND ACHIEVE!!!~ Bruce Lee
When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style.~ Bruce Lee