[mxplxxx (OP)]

Actually, all photons have the same energy (Planck's constant joules), but different power. Energy comes in units called quanta - and this is the basis of quantum theory. A photon always contains one quantum of energy. A lower power photon will not knock an electron from a black body but a higher power one will. See  https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU826AU826&ei=3xccXKyMJsSS9QOi2IfYAg&q=plancks+constant+energy+of+one+cycle&oq=plancks+constant+energy+of+one+cycle&gs_l=psy-ab.3...584984.596812..597188...0.0..0.415.9758.2-30j5j1....2..0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i71j0i67j0i131j0i10j0i22i30j0i13j0i8i13i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i160.Q_EF2BHDRkU

In computer science all objects in a system are types of a basic objects. It seems to me reality could follow a similar pattern where the basic object is a quantum of energy. All variations in the energy of particles could could come about via the spin of the particle (not sure about this) and its momentum (which, being relative, means particles can have any energy that is a multiple of the basic quantum of energy).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So its up to me to say something new

No its not. Not your topic. Moderator, why is this off-topic garbage being allowed?

[Bored chemist]

In computer science all objects in a system are types of a basic objects.

And in the real universe things are not the same as they are in computer programs so....

Wave/particle duality of a photon.

It's hardly an issue for debate.
Depending on the circumstances, photons behave like particles or like waves.
That's not the same as saying they are waves, or that they are particles, or that they are some "mixture" of both.
It's clear that they are neither.
That strange behaviour is what "Duality" means.

[mad aetherist]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave.
(1) Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from?
(2) For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall?
(3) If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit?
(4) What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment?
(5) What does the wave in the experiment look like?

I would like to know your choice of which answers to the five questions were best.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave.
(1) Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from?
(2) For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall?
(3) If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit?
(4) What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment?
(5) What does the wave in the experiment look like?

I would like to know your choice of which answers to the five questions were best.

Sorry to say, I received no answers to these questions that were satisfactory. Physics seems to be in a state of flux at present.

[mad aetherist]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave.
(1) Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from?
(2) For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall?
(3) If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit?
(4) What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment?
(5) What does the wave in the experiment look like?

I would like to know your choice of which answers to the five questions were best.

Sorry to say, I received no answers to these questions that were satisfactory. Physics seems to be in a state of flux at present.

Yes thats the impression of got when i read all of the replies. I dont know much about the single slit & double slit & triple slit experiments, with wide slits & with narrow slits, etc. And i dont know whether u need some good info to help with formal studies (in which case for sure i cant help)(i aint a scientist) or whether u are interested in science (yes i meant that to be funny in a serious way). 

Slit theory is just one more area that shows again how standard science has no good answers, nor good questions. Standard science doesnt have a clue re the nature of a photon, how big, how long, how many waves. And anyhow what is a photon wave.
Worse than that, standard science has no good ideas re the nature of em radiation.  They reckon that em radiation is made of photons. It cant get worse than that.

My theory re the aether nature of photons explains that (i) the slowing of light near mass (Shapiro Delay) & (ii) the bending of light near mass (Einstein's 1.75 arcsec) & (iii) the bending of light in mass (Snell's refraction) & (iv) the bending of light in slits (diffraction) & (v) em radiation, are all due to one cause.  But that wont help exams.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

My theory re the aether nature of photons explains that (i) the slowing of light near mass (Shapiro Delay) & (ii) the bending of light near mass (Einstein's 1.75 arcsec) & (iii) the bending of light in mass (Snell's refraction) & (iv) the bending of light in slits (diffraction) & (v) em radiation, are all due to one cause.  But that wont help exams.

Where can I find your theory? I would consider ditching the use of the word, aether, which has slightly crackers connotations. I am a software developer who thinks the universe is an abstraction hierarchy (a sort of finite state machine) and am developing a software framework, 3dAbstractions,  that implements this hierarchy. Photons in the framework are events that transfer state between objects/particles.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry to say, I received no answers to these questions that were satisfactory.

They were "unsatisfactory" because you refused to understand them.

Physics seems to be in a state of flux at present.

It seems that way to you, but not to those who understand it..

dont know much about the single slit & double slit & triple slit experiments, with wide slits & with narrow slits, etc.

And yet, you thought you were qualified to comment on them.
What does that tell us about you?

I would consider ditching the use of the word, aether, which has slightly crackers connotations.

The word is entirely appropriate.

I am a software developer who thinks the universe is an abstraction hierarchy (a sort of finite state machine) and am developing a software framework, 3dAbstractions,  that implements this hierarchy.

There is no evidence for the underlying belief there,

[mad aetherist]

dont know much about the single slit & double slit & triple slit experiments, with wide slits & with narrow slits, etc.

And yet, you thought you were qualified to comment on them. What does that tell us about you?

Re reality & models & mathland, i am thinking that the mathland wave-models re fringes at slits might be ok (if they give good answers), & the mathland quantum models might be ok (if they give good answers), but i was merely trying to introduce some reality.  What we have is a physical photon being diffracted by the slit. My idea is photons have a main central helical body (that propagates at c throo the aether) & lots of photaenos (tornadic swirls of the aether) that emanate from the body (probly at 5c). Thusly a photon is very large.  If photaenos are slowed by the presence of mass etc then that slows the whole photon, mainly on that side, the photon veers, it diffracts. So here u have a physics, a mechanical explanation, a rare animal in physics nowadays.  I doubt that this simple reality will help much, ie it wont lead to better equations, but it is a start.
And it wont help mxplxxx to construct his computer model. The beauty of a simple model is that it allows u to make a computer program using lots of iterations of small equations, rather than messing around with integration & a big equation.  But i doubt that my photon-photaeno reality will yield any kind of simple model-program. But u never know.

[mad aetherist]

My theory re the aether nature of photons explains that (i) the slowing of light near mass (Shapiro Delay) & (ii) the bending of light near mass (Einstein's 1.75 arcsec) & (iii) the bending of light in mass (Snell's refraction) & (iv) the bending of light in slits (diffraction) & (v) em radiation, are all due to one cause.  But that wont help exams.

Where can I find your theory? I would consider ditching the use of the word, aether, which has slightly crackers connotations. I am a software developer who thinks the universe is an abstraction hierarchy (a sort of finite state machine) and am developing a software framework, 3dAbstractions,  that implements this hierarchy. Photons in the framework are events that transfer state between objects/particles.

If u search New Theories for photaenos u will find most of my thinking.  Which is still developing, & i will add to it during the coming weeks.
But how will your software program work?  Do u simply crunch the math, or  do u try to set up a simple mechanical model & then apply & iterate & sum etc a very simple equation umpteen times. 
I have tried iteration using Excel for the motion & impact & rebound of billiards balls & cushion-rails.

Will your program simply give a number, or will it give a curve or trajectory of some kind of movement or quantity?

[Bored chemist]

dont know much about the single slit & double slit & triple slit experiments, with wide slits & with narrow slits, etc.

And yet, you thought you were qualified to comment on them. What does that tell us about you?

Re reality & models & mathland, i am thinking that the mathland wave-models re fringes at slits might be ok (if they give good answers), & the mathland quantum models might be ok (if they give good answers), but i was merely trying to introduce some reality.  What we have is a physical photon being diffracted by the slit. My idea is photons have a main central helical body (that propagates at c throo the aether) & lots of photaenos (tornadic swirls of the aether) that emanate from the body (probly at 5c). Thusly a photon is very large.  If photaenos are slowed by the presence of mass etc then that slows the whole photon, mainly on that side, the photon veers, it diffracts. So here u have a physics, a mechanical explanation, a rare animal in physics nowadays.  I doubt that this simple reality will help much, ie it wont lead to better equations, but it is a start.
And it wont help mxplxxx to construct his computer model. The beauty of a simple model is that it allows u to make a computer program using lots of iterations of small equations, rather than messing around with integration & a big equation.  But i doubt that my photon-photaeno reality will yield any kind of simple model-program. But u never know.

So, you were unable to actually answer the question...

[mad aetherist]

dont know much about the single slit & double slit & triple slit experiments, with wide slits & with narrow slits, etc.

And yet, you thought you were qualified to comment on them. What does that tell us about you?

Re reality & models & mathland, i am thinking that the mathland wave-models re fringes at slits might be ok (if they give good answers), & the mathland quantum models might be ok (if they give good answers), but i was merely trying to introduce some reality.  What we have is a physical photon being diffracted by the slit. My idea is photons have a main central helical body (that propagates at c throo the aether) & lots of photaenos (tornadic swirls of the aether) that emanate from the body (probly at 5c). Thusly a photon is very large.  If photaenos are slowed by the presence of mass etc then that slows the whole photon, mainly on that side, the photon veers, it diffracts. So here u have a physics, a mechanical explanation, a rare animal in physics nowadays.  I doubt that this simple reality will help much, ie it wont lead to better equations, but it is a start.
And it wont help mxplxxx to construct his computer model. The beauty of a simple model is that it allows u to make a computer program using lots of iterations of small equations, rather than messing around with integration & a big equation.  But i doubt that my photon-photaeno reality will yield any kind of simple model-program. But u never know.

So, you were unable to actually answer the question...

We could argue about the quality of desirable qualifications, or we could argue about the quality of comments. Getting on your hi-horse & shirking comments -- what does that tell us about u? I picture a portrait of a big dictator with a funny hat mounted on a child's rocking horse.

[mad aetherist]

Miles Mathis – The Double Slit Experiment. http://milesmathis.com/double.html
Miles mentions physical mechanical & math models.
First posted August 25, 2008.
In this paper I will show the simple mechanical solution to the famous double slit (or two slit) experiment. Feynman called it the most important experiment for understanding quantum motion, and he may have been right. The most difficult problems are always the most important, and this one has remained unsolved up to this minute. Thomas Young first performed it in 1801, which means it has been a mystery for over 200 years. Even Feynman failed to solve it. He offered a mathematical solution only, but was not able to provide a physical solution.
I will solve the two biggest problems here: the problem of the single photon and the problem of the detector. In the first problem, we let photons go through the experiment one at a time. Using the photon-as-particle theory that Einstein proved and Feynman confirmed, we expect no wave interference, since the photon must go through one slit or the other. But we see interference. The single photon seems to be interfering with itself in some strange way. Up till now, there have been several proposed solutions. Wikipedia lists the most important. The first they mention is that the “wave front” of the photon goes through both slits and interferes with itself. Since the wave front is still not defined mechanically, this solution is not very compelling. The wave front is and always has been defined using Huygen’s visualization. The wave is seen as a semi-circular forward transmission from every point on a line of moving photons. With a single photon, this would be a semi-circle in front of the photon. But we are never told how far this semi-circle extends, what it is composed of, or how it acts upon the field. So we will let this explanation pass as wholly unsatisfactory.
Another solution is to define the photon as a probability. A discrete particle cannot go through both slits at once, but a particle as probability can (as long as we define probabilities in certain ways).
The third and currently accepted explanation is an extension of this second one. Feynman proposed that the photon-as-probability traveled every possible path, and therefore through both slits. Each path is given an equation, and we “sum over” all these equations. If we sum over in the correct way, we achieve interference.
Now, admittedly this is a clever mathematical solution. Feynman was a master of clever mathematical solutions, and this is one of his best. Mathematically it works. But it is not a physical or mechanical solution. It is a mathematical solution. Feynman was not so much a physicist as he was a mathematician that had invaded the physics department (the same could be said of most modern physicists). In his own way, Feynman admitted this. He did not admit to being an invader, but he admitted that his solution was only mathematical. He knew as well as anyone that it wasn’t physical, by the old definition of physics. He got around this by claiming that new physics was and must be mathematical only, since there was no possible mechanical solution.
He was wrong, as I will prove very quickly. His math works precisely because there is a physical reality underlying his probabilities. Probabilities are not the causa sui, the cause of themselves. It is illogical—even as a piece of mathematics—to propose that probabilities are spontaneously generated, or that they are primary generators. No, they must be generated by a real field. Even in pure mathematics, probabilities are always secondary numbers, produced by an underlying field of numbers. A field of probabilities cannot be a foundational field. They therefore cannot take the place of a physical field.