This subject is one of my researches that I tried to solve it by making a 3D model of the diffraction of light.

Experiment Findings A New Concept for Analysis of Diffraction

Light has only wave property. The particle property is in the ether.

Farhad

My arguments are given below

Regards from _______ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson Dear John-Erik, I have already read that. However, I personalty, don't believe in Ether because by accepting Ether, we should accept the space as a holder only. Any quality that you want to assume for Ether, I would say that space can obtain it as well. From the other side, we haven't found such material, although its relevant place at the Mendeleev table is still not filled. It's true that even we don't know what is space either but at least we give the properties to it rather than taking it solely as a holder.

Tusen tack!

John-Erik Persson

“…each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between different photons never occurs". Paul Dirac

Also, the interference pattern in Young’s double slit experiment appears even when only one photon (or electron) is sent through the slits at a time, seemingly making `multi-photon interference’ irrelevant.

It is possible! Please see:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Farhad and Abdul

Without the ether space is empty and cannot transport ether waves or force of gravity. We need the ether to do the waving. The resistance to the ether is caused by the illusion of light particles in stead of as waves. The wave/particle paradox. Not complementarity. Particles are needed for the ether, but light is only waves.

Farhad's tests demonstrate light to be waves.

From _________ John-Erik

Farhad

If you read my last article you could see how the wave or particle paradox was produced by the misunderstandings in the transverse arm in MMX.

John-Erik

The diffraction of light by particles is one of the components of light scattering. The other two components are refraction and reflection. The diffraction is external to the particle and therefore independent of particle composition. Diffraction is also independent of wavelength, and depends only on particle size.

There is no such thing as ether, as one of the responders mentioned. This was proven without doubt by the Michelson-Morley experiment at the end of the 19th century and this result spawned the Special Theory of Relativity.

Yes and no. The STOE suggests light itself is a particle (photon, corpuscle). However, the photon is matter and matter warps the plenum (like space of GR, ether, but with slightly different characteristics, hence the Descartes inspired name). There are several interference experiments that reject the pure wave nature of light and the wave-partical duality model. see the project for details of the STOE model and the links to the papers detailing the experiments supporting the particle model and rejecting the all wave models

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference?_sg=VJP977xIlpSU4gtKrMMBy2iVhtA0B9O7bRTZer06WS6rDu3iIkXcV1WDHeA-S432lHkMp5lUjA4fBpmUwDbqpgW_9Mb_e7POXBk0

or the videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=142s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k&t=18s

Even Vedad's paper supports the STOE model by showing the crossing pattern.

Pour répondre cette question, il faut d’abord comprendre la nature la lumière

En effet elle est une particule mais pas ponctuelle, mais elle comme une corde longue dont la taille dépend du moment où elle a été émise, et de la durée où la particule émettrice était en vitesse constante (voir mon étude : traité de physique). Et cette lumière oscille ce qui fait qu’elle a un temps (voir mon étude :Traité de physique –sur researchgate - qui explique pourquoi il y a la couleur des objets) cette spécifique fait qu’elle ne réagit avec un atome en fonction du temps de l’atome qui oscille aussi. Ainsi une molécule est constituée dans un certain nombre d’atomes par conséquence il a un temps propre elle aussi, de là le solide (par exemple le prisme) est un ensemble de temps (molécules) qui seront organisés selon un ordre (Voir mon traité de physique sur resaerchgate).

Donc la diffraction est le produit de cet ensemble de facteurs (lumière temps, prisme ensemble de temps) et comme un temps spécifique ne réagit avec un autre avec lequel il en phase, donc naturellement la lumière sera décomposée en franges, sur des faces bien spécifique du prisme (voir le traité de physique sur l’organisation des atomes dans un aimant droit)

My understanding is that a photon is a unique quantum object, neither a particle nor a wave. It has energy but no mass and can only travel at c. This makes it fundamentally different from particles with mass. We can describe its behavior in some experiments most easily by treating it as a wave (e.g., diffraction), and in others by treating it as a particle (e.g., photoelectric effect). These classically based models work, but they belie the quantum nature of light, and particle and wave are not fundamental properties of photons.

Comme je le dis tantôt , la taille du photon dépend de la durée où la particule émettrice était en mouvement constant, plus ce tant est court plus la taille de cette corde est réduite , cependant les photons ont une spécificité qui fait que, plus ils voyagent longtemps plus ils s'allongent (voir mon étude), ce qui explique le fait quand on pointe une lampe vers le ciel le faisceau s'agrandit, de même une source de lumière de petite taille peut éclairer une grande salle etc..

Refractive index of the medium is one of the most important important factors along with the consideration of the light propagation. However, this important factor (nD and also imaginary) was ignored at the opaque/transparent barriers or obstacles diffraction. It is also ignored the index of the refraction of the barriers/obstacles vs the medium.

Those factors are the basics of my works.

We know that light is transmitted by atoms... right ?! If light is a particle... where do we place that tiny asshole the atom must have in order to fart particles like photons ?

The idea of light as particles is sick... and not worth discussing !

Berndt Barkholz Similarly, I would say electrons cannot be particles too, because they behave like photons in many experiments, such as double slit experiment.

Berndt Barkholz I have no idea where does your polite talking come from, anyway, if your knowledge is so far from the theories which are presented by people such as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and in general if you haven't studied physics then at least read Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Well you are funny Farhad... but at least you could try to answer my legitimate {and not so polite} question... the "light particle" must come out somewhere and can only continue in one direction... and believe me, I couldn't care less what Feynman or uncle Albert have to say about that...

However... stupid propositions, like {among others} "the photon" generate stupid and not so polite questions... get used to that...

Berndt Barkholz Of course, there are thousands of unknown and mysteries and of course, we try to develop our understanding of nature.

My question argues the "Copenhagen interpretation" that because they couldn't explain the diffraction based on the particle property, then they produce an idea, Wave-particle duality, that even Feynman who developed a part of quantum mechanics would not accept that.

In my relevant preprint article, I showed that we can explain the diffraction based on particle property without engaging the duality by giving more definition to space, and those extra definitions occurred to me because of the results of my experimental works.

Let there be mysteries until we understand and know, but there is a long way to develop any understanding when we produce nonsensical stuff like "photons"... the only way an atom can deliver electromagnetic energy to it's surroundings is by releasing a spherical wave... and not by blowing particles out from a hole placed somewhere on the surface ! The same goes for "force carrying" particles... the concept stinks and is more ridiculously infantile than scientific...

Berndt Barkholz I can fully understand what you mean but in that way you may hit to another difficulties and that is the propagation of photons in a straight line in the space between stars. However, this is not all. with your idea, you are not able to describe how lasers are working, and neither the Compton effect, and so on.

Farhad Vedad

How can you state that light is going in a straight line... if that was true then I couldn't see the same star as you... because the straight line would end in one of your eyes, but not in mine... but since I can see the same star as you, the straight line argument doesn't hold !

Berndt Barkholz Actually, you don't see the star as I do and third person cannot see the same as each of us does individually.

From the other side, why we believe light travels as a single photon? I would say the easiest way to prove it is shadows.

In another example, I would say that you can do the experiment of the diffraction by releasing the photons one by one. The property that you cannot do it with RF.

...oh, we don't ? So this picture taken with a telescope would look different to your eye ? In that case I feel with you !

Berndt Barkholz In every moment photons leave the surface of an object. Uncountable photons traveling in the space and a fragment of them get absorbed by your eyes, by my eyes and so on, then how can you believe that we have got the same photons and consequently the same image?

There are a number of things that they are something in reality and we understand them different such as the images on the screen of the cinema or TV that we see them continues. Then don't take your feeling as the reality.

Berndt Barkholz

Yes, light follows a straight line or a ray. However, you must see that that ray has no physical existence. What really exists is instead a wave front that has a capacity to conserve direction independent of ether wind per se. Ether wind can change direction only a very small amount due to a gradient in ether wind. So, transverse ether wind cannot tilt a wave front and not cause an effect in transverse arm in MMX and not cause stellar aberration.

Stellar aberration is instead caused by a wave front, constant in relation to our Sun, is transferred to the frame of our planet. Constant in reality means a changed representation in moving frame.

With best regards from ___________ John-Erik

I prefer to use the property of the space instead of ether, a material that its density has not been and cannot be measured either near massive stars nor inside a tiny object, and it seems that it has nothing to do except for filling the space between the objects. By the way, if ether has no electron then how it may affect visible light and vice versa.

Bonjour,

Je vous transmet mon traité de physique, qui peut vous apporter beaucoup d'explications sur la diffraction, surtout sur l'arc-en-ciel (dans l’histoire de Noé, l'arc-en-ciel est une alliance entre nous et Dieu).