[zelphirkalt]

Who knows, maybe they actually do, but we do not know it yet. I mean, how do you know they do not?

[rosybox]

The absence of evidence doesn't make an idea more plausible, it makes it less plausible.

I can't disprove that a celestial teapot is circling the sun between Earth and Mars, so how do you know it isn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[zelphirkalt]

Less plausible != impossible.

"Knowing" for me means, that there is no way, that we can be wrong about something. Otherwise it's only "believe", not "knowledge".

It would be good to say the following, instead of "it is so": "So far experiments did never show any sign of identity of photons." (Were there any such experiments?) Oh and what about quantum entanglement of photons? Could that not be interpreted as a sign of identity?

[mhh__]

Modern physics is built on the idea of fundamentally indistinguishable particles.

We may not know but we can only know what we can see and what we can see is explained by what we know.