One must devote the necessary time to meditate upon the musings of Jones in 
order  to gather the full depth.. or, the absence of depth, when considering 
the word " figurative". Not only can the "hole" exist, it can exist when it's 
absent. Interestingly, like a "lost wax" method of casting. The question 
remains.. " how does the wax become lost?"
Fortunately, the Dime Box keeps regular hours, else folks could wander in and 
only catch part of the conversation which can lead to strange conclusions.
Richard



  Although it is a good bet that Richard offered this bit of hidden knowledge 
'tongue-in-cheek' - perhaps as the start of a dime-box sucker-bet, so to 
speak...

  ... there is literal truth to it (in vino veritas?) ... so be glad I saved 
you a few bucks for the next round of shots - with the following whiskey-talk 
... OTOH does the dime-box open this early?

  The positive charge is almost always identified figuratively as an electron 
"hole" and what "hidden" particle in nature always acts as an electron hole?

  BTW if you said "positive ion" - instead of positron - my conclusion is still 
the same: the +ion is positive because it has an attached "real" positron. This 
particle however is normally neutral and unseen to us.

  All of this semantics duality - which is inherent in the fact that a 
figurative "hole" can be a real particle - can be resolved by looking at, or 
specifically "for" the "interface" which is the thin-line or boundary between 
3-space and reciprocal space.

  This is the space where positrons can emerge from normal-neutrality (from our 
perspective) so to speak, and hang out with impunity, like on a teetering 
bar-stool, and not fall fully into forbidden-zone of 3-space (where all the 
crazies live)...

  Jones






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: R C Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Does it really matter? Positrons are actually neutrons since the positive 
  pole of a battery is actually the negative when you think about it.
  Richard 


Reply via email to