[LEFT said:
Wiccan_Child[/left];54110443]Why does that have any bearing one whether bosons constitute matter?
Because there is an informal definition of matter that has existed for centuries which is based on a rule that two things cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Fermions seem to comply with this rule, bosons do not. You brought up matter. I would be happy just with the idea of fermions.
The double-slit experiment shows that particles (such as electrons and photons) can interact with themselves, but that hardly shows they can only interact with themselves.
Are you saying that wave-particle duality doesn't exist and particles are just "interacting" with themselves?
The Michelson interferometer, Bragg diffraction, even rainbows, are all instances of interference patterns that occur because photons are interacting with other photons.
These are all due to the wave nature. Are you saying that the wave nature is the result of particles interacting with themselves? Do you have any papers that support this claim?
Electrons feel a force from any charged particle, while photons only feel force from massive particles.
Electrons actualise the forces between each other by emitting and absorbing photons. Photons are the interactions of electrons and other charged particles.
All the force carriers (maybe not gluons I have not read up on that) "feel" the shape of the space around them. This does not mean that things like Photons actually feel a force it means that the interactions of leptons and quarks have some dependency on the shape of the spacetime between them.
It just so happens that electrons are charged, and photons are massless.
While it just so happens that photons are massless it does not just happen they are free of charge.
No. But do you agree that the nucleus is matter? If so, why? What about it makes it matter? It's a boson, isn't it?
Two Helium 4 nuclei cannot occupying the same space, they figure out that they are made of fermions if they are brought to close together.
Who said I do? The only ontologically significant ones are those which are consistent with themselves and with reality.
Define consistency.
I'm not criticising your definition, I'm simply puzzled why you adhere to it.
Which definition are you talking about. If it is my definition of matter I am just using the one that seem the most reasonable to me from the intuitive definition of matter. I personally would prefer to leave it with fermions and bosons. You understand that my definition of matter might include electron holes since they can be fermions and are not reducible to other particles (emergent but not reducible). I don't like it.
And nowadays we have the Standard Model, which explains phenomena in terms of particles. Do you really reject the existence of particles?
I do sort of. I reject that they must be or are definitely fundamental. I consider that what we call an electron might be an emergent phenomenon. I don't reject the idea of a electron in the same manner I don't reject the idea of a homo sapiens sapiens.
Or do you just not understand the rather crucial difference between electrons and electron holes?
IMO electron holes are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks. I also think that photons are a mathematical abstraction of the interaction of electrons and quarks.
What do you think is the crucial ontological difference between photons and electron holes beyond their relative properties? I don't see one.