[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Considering how many misconceptions we can find online,

Like the idea that a meaningful amount of light will go through a steel ball bearing...

Isn't it your idea?

[alancalverd]

I found no reference in quantum mechanics textbooks which decisively state the errors of those principles

Precisely because they don't describe quantum events!
For the umpteenth time: we need two distinct mathematical models of electromagnetic phenomena. We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter. So far, one or other always works, and the experimental result tells you which one to use. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I found no reference in quantum mechanics textbooks which decisively state the errors of those principles

Precisely because they don't describe quantum events!
For the umpteenth time: we need two distinct mathematical models of electromagnetic phenomena. We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter. So far, one or other always works, and the experimental result tells you which one to use. 

Prior to Newton, heavenly bodies were thought to follow a different set of rules compared to terrestrial objects.

[alancalverd]

And now we realise that scientific "laws" are not prescriptive rules but mathematical models that have proved to be very robust.

Consequently we are happy to use Newton's "laws"  to build cars and Einstein's "laws" for the GPS system that tells us where we are. Likewise two very effective models for electromagnetic radiation.

Nobody ever claimed physics was easy or obvious (Eddington said the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast)  but unlike philosophy or religion, which are deliberately obfuscatory, it works.

[Bored chemist]

Considering how many misconceptions we can find online,

Like the idea that a meaningful amount of light will go through a steel ball bearing...

Isn't it your idea?

No.
Please try to pay attention.
It's the exact opposite of what I said.
Do you remember , this is what I posted

Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.

But you tried to say that the light goes through the metal

Steel is not perfectly opaque in visible light spectrum. It has penetration depth longer than the wavelength.

And I pointed out that , if that's really what you believe, you can easily prove it.

Set up the experiment with white light and a copper, brass or gold bead.
If the light goes through the metal then you will get a coloured spot, not a white one.

[Bored chemist]

Prior to Newton, heavenly bodies were thought to follow a different set of rules compared to terrestrial objects.

Prior to Newton they were not using science; but faith.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And I pointed out that , if that's really what you believe, you can easily prove it.

It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?

The rest of the video can be watched here

video #2 Edge shapes effect

video #3 Diffraction by transparent objects

video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle

It seems like you haven't watched my video below.

Here is a new video demonstrating diffraction of microwave using multilayer metal grating, which is a meta-material.

Same as diffraction by normal material, it only occurs when the meta-material is adequately transparent to the microwave.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We use continuous wave equations to describe propagation, and quantum mechanics to explain microscopic interactions with matter.

What does quantum mechanics tell you about a single photon? Does it have a single frequency?  Does it have a finite wave number?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.

But any illuminated edge diffracts.

Not necessarily. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.

From my experience, diffraction requires partial opacity/transparency. Perfectly opaque objects, as well as perfectly transparent objects don't produce observable diffraction.

In visible light range of frequency, metals are partially transparent. This video from 4:20 time stamp shows this clearly.

Most published experiments involving diffraction of light, including double slit experiments often ignore this.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Optical phonons are out-of-phase movements of the atoms in the lattice, one atom moving to the left, and its neighbor to the right. This occurs if the lattice basis consists of two or more atoms. They are called optical because in ionic crystals, such as sodium chloride, fluctuations in displacement create an electrical polarization that couples to the electromagnetic field.[2] Hence, they can be excited by infrared radiation, the electric field of the light will move every positive sodium ion in the direction of the field, and every negative chloride ion in the other direction, causing the crystal to vibrate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

I think it's possible to explain how light seem to propagate through the edge of a ball as optical phonon. In visible light, the vibrating particles are the electron, instead of ion.

[Bored chemist]

It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?

By going through the air.
Was that really a serious question?

[Bored chemist]

Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?

[Bored chemist]

For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.

Who doesn't know that?
I have seen through gold leaf.
A cheap mirror will show the effect just fine if you clean the paint off the back.
You  seem not to have noticed some of my words.

Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.

I know it isn't strictly true. But it's very close to true.
And we know that the light that forms the bright spot at the centre of a shadow can't be due to light going through the metal.
So we know that it's near enough to being true.

[Bored chemist]

I think it's possible to explain how light seem to propagate through the edge of a ball as optical phonon.

Yes, you can; by using science.
You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.
That's been known for centuries.
And, if the light that caused the bright dot in the centre of a shadow of a gold ball was green, you would have a point.
But it isn't.

So we know that the light is not going through the metal.

So, why are you still talking about something we know is wrong?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You discover that light that goes through gold leaf is green.

Did I?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's easily deduced from my previous video, especially when using a cutter knife made of steel. How do you think the light can go to the area behind the knife?

By going through the air.
Was that really a serious question?

Is vacuum can be used?
If the knife is removed, will the light still go to that area?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?

What kind of changes do I need to consider?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For those who doesn't know that metals are partially transparent in visible light spectrum.

Who doesn't know that?
I have seen through gold leaf.
A cheap mirror will show the effect just fine if you clean the paint off the back.
You  seem not to have noticed some of my words.

Most people consider a ball bearing to be perfectly opaque to visible light.

I know it isn't strictly true. But it's very close to true.
And we know that the light that forms the bright spot at the centre of a shadow can't be due to light going through the metal.
So we know that it's near enough to being true.

If the ball is replaced by a cylinder, what will be shown on the screen?
What if it's replaced by a box?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So we know that the light is not going through the metal.

So, you still don't know it, yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The expected result in reply #76 wouldn't make sense according to conservation of energy, if the transmitter actually sends a single photon at a time, which then triggers the detectors.
But it makes sense if the transmitter transmit the dim light continuously, and trigger the detectors after they accumulate adequate amount of energy. That's why temperature of the detectors affects the detection rate.

The main difference between my hypothesis and photon model is where the randomization occurs.

My hypothesis asserts that the randomization occurs at the detector. Light energy received by the detector will either be reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. Absorbed light will be transformed into other forms of energy, like heat, light at different frequency, chemical reaction, electron ejection, etc. which can be sensed by detector.

In photon model, randomization occurs at the transmitter, as well as beam splitter. Many pop-sci articles presented that the event when  a detector is triggered simply means a photon has been captured, with no room for uncertainty. AFAIK, it is affected by environmental condition, such as temperature, cosmic ray, interference of electromagnetic wave, and electrical potential applied to the detector.

Just in case someone hasn't known what my model of light is, or has already forgotten about it.
So far, it can be used to explain various experimental results that I've done.
One of the most convincing results is that it allows me to design and correctly predict the results of disjointed twin polarizers and conjoined twin polarizers experiments in microwave frequency.

Here is another video investigating the effect of twin polarizer.

It shows the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other but are still separated electrically. The last part shows the polarisation of microwave coming out from the last polarizer.

The next video will show the effect of double polarizer when they are close to each other and electrically connected, so stay tuned.

And here are videos demonstrating conjoined twin polarizer

In the end of the experiment, it's shown that rotating the receiver can make the reading down to 0, which means that the microwave is linearly polarized instead of eliptical or circularly polarized.