From: Edmund Storms
What constitutes a boson is even uncertain in such a structure. That is the bare truth, like it or not. In point of fact - the determination of “boson” identity – whether nuclear, atomic, molecular, or composite bosons - now borders on the ludicrous. You have 4 ways to permutate the end-product - so everything is bosonic! This kind of reminiscent of what constitutes a Mills’ catalyst – everything! Since we now have quasiparticles being identified as bosons- it is easier to answer what is NOT a boson than what is a boson. Answer – aside from a single electron of proton which are seldom seen in nature as singlets – everything, that’s right EVERYTHING in the periodic table can be manipulated into the category of composite boson. Therefore, when you find the bosonic phenomenon with electrons – you must invent something like the Copper pair in order to make them look bosonic. Or when you find it with a rubidium, not an atomic boson, you must hem and haw a bit so as not to confuse students, who think you are really a brilliant professor. For instance - you can always double-up on fermions to give the appearance of a boson and most gases are found in molecular pairs. H2 is a composite or molecular boson for instance and it is an atomic boson as well but not a nuclear boson – whereas deuterium is a nuclear boson but NOT an atomic boson. So which one is more “bosonic” protium or deuterium? There is a good argument that protium is more bosonic even without being a nuclear boson since deuterium is not an atomic boson. And, after all – would anyone have guessed from looking at the definitions offered - that most of the experimental work with cold bosons has been done with rubidium !?! Give me a break. The whole field borders on the absurd. Rubidium has 37 protons, 48 neutrons and 37 electrons. Most of these important categories are fermionic, having half-integer net spin. So obviously rubidium cannot be bosonic, correct? NOOO …. not according to fizzix. That right even if most of the major subcomponents of any atom ARE fermionic, a composite boson can emerge like magic – and this is how the Nobel Prize was won – i.e. by going back from an experiment and then essentially inventing the explanation in retrospect (which is by duplicity so to speak). Yet most of us did not complain. After all, these are the experts talking. The same ones that tell us that LENR is pathological science. To finish the thought, yes – as it turns out there are 122 particles in a Rb-85 atom, and 122 is divisible by 2, ergo- because this is an even number - the Rb-85 atom is indeed a boson, but the nucleus itself is not bosonic, yet two of them are! Consequently - if the same phenomenon had been seen (in retrospect) with any other element in the periodic table, and we wanted to call the phenomenon a product of boson statistics – there exists a way to do that. We can always double down and call it a Cooper pair. Thus, almost anyone with a half a mind ( a fermionic mind?) can see what a joke this name-game has become. Pair-up and conquer.
