@Reza Taheri Ghahrizjani

I am sorry, your question is wrong.

"when the size of the particles tends to be very small, for example, toward Planck's constant"

1. First of all Planck's constant has the dimensions of action, it does not have dimensions of length.

2. Photons are not necessarily small, see this table with wavelengths of photons

The electromagnetic spectrum, λ(m)

Cosmic rays: 10-14

Gamma rays: 5×10-12

X rays: 5×10-10

UV rays: 5×10-8

Visible light: 5×10-7

Infra red: 5×10-5

Microwaves: 5×10-2

Radio waves: 100

Particles don't have sizes. In different types of experiments one gets for the same particle other "lenghs", e.g. neutron wavelength from Compton scattering, nuclear radius from electron scattering, etc. What particles have, it's wavelength obtained from the linear momentum p, i.e. λ = h/p. As you can see, the greater the linear momentum, the shorter is the wavelength.

Dear Reza!

Your ideas are tending in a uncommon but right direction.

The underlying fact is the relation between photons as energetical particles (or rather energetical units) and all the other material particles (or rather material units).

The fundamental transitition point between energy and material matter is given by: γ ↔ e+ + e− what means pair production and annihilation. It is absolutely independent from the size of the involved particles but from the amount of energy ( → wavelength).

It can be demonstrated that all the actual existing material particles are composed of electrons and positrons (see the link below). But it is fashion in physics to declare the world of particles by scientific considerations and not by absolutely accurate analysis. We should get used that the standard model is unfortunately a obsolescent model.

My regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Some (composite) particle do have physical sizes or spatial extensions (like the proton, about 1fm), but the size is not generally very important: as Sofia said, it is the wavelength (corresponding to the particle momentum) that is important and, in particular, its relation to the size of obstacles or detectors. Young's double slit experiment works when the wavelength of the light used is comparable with the slit spacing, Bragg diffraction is observed for neutrons on crystals when the lattice spacing is comparable to the neutron wavelength (not size), Compton scattering of light off electrons occurs when the light wavelength is comparable to the electron Compton wavelength (h/mc) ...

Thus, when light passes through a medium or impinges on some obstacle or surface, if all relevant length scale are different to the wavelength, then we see particle-like behaviour (light rays and obvious directions of motion), whereas when light interacts with something of length scale comparable to the wavelength, we observe wave-like behaviour (diffusion, diffraction, interference ...).

Dear Reza Taheri Ghahrizjani,

Your question is good in its meaning. Indeed, photon is a moving particle, its state changes periodically during the flight. So the state of a photon can be represented in the form of a wave with a certain length, but the wave is not a single object, and it is only image of states of a single photon at different points in time. But we will receive the photon at once, entirely. Not in parts.

Now consider a radio wave with a length of one hundred meters. We can interrupt its reception at any time. Do we can assume at which momentthat we received this wave?

-when we started to receive it?

-when we received 1/4 wave?

-when we received 1/3 of the wave?

-when we received 1/2 of the wave?

-when we received 3/4 of the wave?

-when we finished to receive it?

If we interrupted reception for example, at 1/3 wavelength, which part of the energy of the wave we got?! It would seem that we have got only part of the energy of the wave, and in this case, it is a contradiction!

But no, the wave and the wavelength is not a real characteristic of a single particle in this case. These are the characteristics of the group of synphase photons. Indeed, in the medium wavelength of light changes but frequency & energy remain the same. It turns out that the wave on the oscilloscope we can see not because the photon has not yet been adopted, but because we see not one photon, but the synphase photons in different points in time. A part of photons from the group we received and recorded their phase at the time of admission, and the remaining photons of the group have not been enacted continue to change its state. So is the reception of photons from the group for the purposes of the oscilloscope. In addition, there are special devices in it for the purpose of smoothing the taken image between the moments of the phase measurement in the group of photons.

When the antenna receive the wave, and at some point we turned it off, all the energy of the accepted photons already is, and not some part.

So, a light wave of a single particle is not a physical object, but a picture of the photon at different points, and we receive the wave not at the last or the middle point, and at every moment. Thus, the concept of electromagnetic waves and photon-particles are not equivalent.

To answer your question, imagine how the wave is received and is emitted. It is emitted by individual particles in the form of particles, and it is accepted by particles in the form of particles, that is, the "wave" is a set of synphase particles.

---

Уважаемый Reza Taheri Ghahrizjani,

Ваш вопрос правильный по своему смыслу.

Действительно, фотоном мы называем частицу, во время полета которой ее состояние периодически меняется. Поэтому мы состояние фотона можем представить в виде волны с некоторой длиной, но волны - это не единый объект, а только образы состояния одного фотона в разные моменты времени. Но принимаем фотон сразу, целиком. Не по частям.

А теперь рассмотрим радиоволну длиной сто метров. Мы можем прервать ее прием в любой момент. В какой момент можно считать, что мы приняли эту волну:

-когда мы только начали принимать ее?

-когда мы приняли 1/4 волны?

-когда мы приняли 1/3 волны?

-когда мы приняли 1/2 волны?

-когда мы приняли 3/4 волны?

-когда мы закончили принимать ее?

Если мы прервали прием, например, на 1/3 длины волны, какую часть энергии волны мы приняли?! Казалось бы, что мы приняли только часть энергии волны, и в таком случае - это противоречие! Но нет, волна и длина волны не есть действительная характеристика одной частицы в данном случае. Это характеристики группы синфазных фотонов. Действительно, в среде длина волны света меняется, а вот частота и энергия остаются прежними. Оказывается, волну на осциллографе мы видим не потому, что фотон еще не принят, а потому, что мы видим на нем не один фотон, а группу синфазных фотонов в разные моменты времени. Часть фотонов из группы мы приняли и зафиксировали их фазу в момент приема, а остальные фотоны из группы еще не приняты продолжают менять свое состояние. Так распределяется прием фотонов из группы для целей осциллографа. К тому же в нем стоят специальные устройства для целей сглаживания принимаемой картинки между моментами измерения фазы в группе фотонов.

Когда же антенна принимает волну, и в какой-то момент мы ее выключили, вся энергия принятых фотонов в ней уже находится, а не какая-то часть.

Итак, световая волна одной частицы – это не физический объект, а представление о фотоне в разные моменты, а мы принимаем волну не в последний или средний момент, а в каждый момент. Таким образом, понятие электромагнитной волны и фотона-частицы не эквивалентны.

Чтобы ответить на ваш вопрос, нужно представить себе, каким образом принимается и как излучается «волна». Она излучается отдельными частицами в виде частиц, и она принимается частицами в виде частиц, то есть «волна» - это совокупность синфазных частиц.

Dear Reza,

Photons do not have sizes as such because they are elementary electromagnetic particles, and as such they are made of mutually inducing electric and magnetic aspects which results in a transverse oscillation of the photon energy.

This is the same for massive elementary particles such as the electron, because we know since Blackett and Occhialini in the 1930's that electromagnetic photons of sufficient energy can be converted to massive electron-positron pairs, and that such pairs can be converted back to electromagnetic photons state.

There were also extensive head on scattering of electron beams that showed experimentally that no unbreachable limit is encountered during such collisions however close electrons come to each other centers during direct head on collisions. So no size can be associated to electrons either, because they also are electromagnetically oscillating transversally.

There seems to be a deeply ingrained conception that the wavelength value that allows calculating the photon energy is longitudinal, but frontal cross section has nothing to do with it. When photons are being intercepted, the whole photon can only be intercepted entirely and instantly due to its velocity (the speed of light).

Planck's constant is a measure of quantized emission of energy, not a fixed minimal energy state.

There are still quite a few unresolved issues regarding photons and other elementary massive particles, but size is not an issue in this research.