Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[CarlTN]

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.

Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list

Very glad to hear that, and once again, I very much like your image of the tree sunset above with the mighty Otus !!! Happy Easter to you sir!

 

[Eldar]

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.

Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list

Very glad to hear that, and once again, I very much like your image of the tree sunset above with the mighty Otus !!! Happy Easter to you sir!

Thanks Carl. It is actually a sunrise. Happy Easter to you to!

 

[Eldar]

An early March morning at Hvalstrand Bad, where the seasonal restaurant is getting ready for spring opening. The Oslo fjord in the background.
5DIII, 1/15s, f5.0, ISO100, tripod

 

[traingineer]

My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc),

I know Tokyo, but I've never heard of the other two places. Sure they are in Japan?

Unfortunately they are, when you come out of the Ground Floor Mandarin Oriental Tokyo turn right & they are the first two Shops you come to, I always try to turn left.

Carolina Herrera is good value. 8)

 

[sagittariansrock]

So what would you have me do?

Give him a partial answer that is incomplete and doesn't transfer proper knowledge?

Redirect him to a web page that kind of tells him what to expect but doesn't convey full understanding?

Maybe quote one or two web pages and pretend to be an "expert" like others here?

Sometimes the best advice for someone is where to find information or how to obtain it because everything else will not come close. Maybe my recommendation is because I've studied physics and understand that doing a course in it will teach you more and give you a much better understanding of light than any amount of random posts here.

Hey, how about this for an option: if you don't know the answer, why not keep shut?
Especially considering that your advice is extremely impractical. One does not take a physics course to understand an optical phenomenon he might be passingly interested in. Do you usually sign up at the Culinary institute when you are interested in learning a new dish? And is it even possible for a working person earning a livelihood to sign up for college just like that?
By implying your advice was not a rude joke but actually intended seriously, you betray your intelligence.

 

[jrista]

Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Light from a point light source is emitted in a spherical wavefront. That wavefront, in an ideal vacuum, will emanate progressively outwards, in perpetuity, without changing. The entire time the wavefront is propagating, it is also diffracting. Even though there is nothing to diffract from...the diffraction is intrinsic. At every point along the wavefront, at every moment, light diffracts...separates and spreads...in a predictable fashion and in such a manner as to reinforce the basic nature of light...inverse squared falloff. (If you think about it for a bit, for inverse square falloff to actually work, even in an ideal vacuum SOMETHING would have to be happening to the light in the wavefront to make it disperse...in the absence of everything else, the dispersion would have to be intrinsic...diffraction.)

If you throw up an obstruction in the path of that light, the obstruction DOES block the light behind it. Any light not blocked by it continues on, however now there is a void in the wavefront. Without that void, the parts of the wavefront that make it around the obstruction don't actually "bend" to create the ring-light halos around the obstruction. They are diffracting, which is causing the light to spread out in a certain way. Same deal with an opening, only in this case all light except what passes through the opening is blocked, and the light that passed through it is still diffracting, still causing it to spread out.

So, since diffraction is an intrinsic property of light, will the use of a polarizer "straiten" light out? A polarizer is a filter that is designed to allow light with a certain radial orientation through. The filter could be thought of as basically a series of extremely thin, tall slits. The light with the same orientation as the slits will get through, all other light will be blocked. Each slit could be thought of as an aperture. Since diffraction is intrinsic...all the light that passes through the polarizing filter will still be diffracting. Even if your using a circular polarizer, the light that exits the quarter wave plate is also still diffracting. Diffraction cannot be stopped, because it is a fundamental trait of the behavior of light in a wavefront.

 

[sagittariansrock]

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Diffraction happens with waves and one method that we use to model light's behaviour is to say that in some circumstances it behaves like a wave. Diffraction is not an intrinsic property of light at all, it is a trait of waves and how waves behave.

Please stop spreading bad science.

Light exhibits characteristics of both waves and particles. One of these characteristics is diffraction. Light is not said to exhibit diffraction because it is modeled after waves, but it is modeled after waves because it exhibits traits like diffraction, among other things, that cannot be explained by a purely particle nature.
Arrogance looks much better when backed by real talent

 

[jrista]

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Diffraction happens with waves and one method that we use to model light's behaviour is to say that in some circumstances it behaves like a wave. Diffraction is not an intrinsic property of light at all, it is a trait of waves and how waves behave.

Please stop spreading bad science.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here is an article that details the actual science of what a diffracted wavefront is, how diffraction in a wavefront presents and behaves, :

http://www.telescope-optics.net/wave.htm

And I quote:

An imaginary surface connecting wave points of identical oscillatory motion, or phase, is called phasefront. Geometrical approximation of the phasefront, based on the identical ray optical path length (OPL) from the source is called optical wavefront, or simply wavefront. For optical telescopes, phasefront and wavefront are, for all practical purposes, identical as long as the wavefront error remains relatively small. The difference between the two comes from the latter increasing directly with the nominal wavefront deviation, while the former follows the increase nominally, but effectively it oscillates from the maximum constructive interference for wavefront points deviating any whole number of waves - including, of course, zero deviation - decreasing to zero constructive interference from any wavefront point deviating by a whole number of half-wave deviations.

Ray, on the other hand, is simply a straight line with the origin at the point-source, that remains perpendicular to the wavefront. While rays are useful in presenting geometrical aspects of optical phenomena, they represent only a tiny fraction of the total energy propagating through the energy field. Furthermore, it is only their geometric properties that are being considered. Therefore, ray (or geometric) optics has no direct relation with the physical properties of the energy field.

The geometric tools we use to describe light, such as rays, are simply that...tools used to describe light. They do not, however, actually have anything to do with what light actually is or how it actually behaves.

And I quote further:

Diffraction

According to Huygens' principle, every wavefront point is a source of secondary wavelets, through which spreads in the direction of propagation. This constitutes a micro-structure of energy field propagation, with the energy advancing in the direction of the wavefront, but also spreading out in other directions. Principal waves, or wavefronts, form in the direction determined by extending straight lines from the point source. Waves moving in other directions generate phase difference, preventing them from forming another effective wavefront (FIG. 1, top right). However, these diffracted waves do interfere with both, principal waves and among themselves.

As a consequence of the existence of diffracted wave energy, placing obstruction of some form in the light path will result in the "emergence" of this energy in the space behind obstruction. But the obstruction did not change anything in the way the light propagates - it merely took out energy of the blocked out principal waves, with the remaining diffracted field creating some form of intensity distribution in the space behind obstruction - the diffraction pattern.

Similarly, by limiting energy field to an aperture, the portion passing through it is separated from the rest of the field, and its energy - this time consisting from both, aperture-shaped principal waves and diffracted waves within - will create a pattern of energy distribution behind the aperture. Again, there is no actual change in propagation for the light passing the aperture, including those close to the edge of obstruction (light does not "bend around the edge"); whatever the form of energy distribution behind the aperture, it is caused by the interference of primary and diffracted waves inherent to the energy field (FIG. 1, middle and bottom).

Diffraction is interference. If you study the nature of light and waves enough, you'll find many a renown scientist making that claim, that diffraction and interference are essentially the same thing. Diffraction is an intrinsic property of propagating light waves. When an obstruction blocks light or an opening passes light, the void left behind by the light that was blocked is filled with the diffracting light (the natural effect of each and every point along a wavefront sending out secondary wavelets.) The appearance of a diffracted wavefront is due to the interference those wavelets cause with each other. In case you don't actually read the entirety of the quoted text, let me point out the most important part, again:

Again, there is no actual change in propagation for the light passing the aperture, including those close to the edge of obstruction (light does not "bend around the edge"); whatever the form of energy distribution behind the aperture, it is caused by the interference of primary and diffracted waves inherent to the energy field (FIG. 1, middle and bottom).

I've emphasized the key points.

I am not spreading bad science. I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am not spreading bad science. I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.

Jon, with due respect Dilbert is raising a point about diffraction not being inherent to light, but secondarily attributable to light based on the waveform model (he is wrong, of course).
Your post above and the quoted sections describes how diffraction is a property of light waves, but that would be applicable even if diffraction was attributed secondarily to light AFTER modeling it after waveforms IMO.

To find that answer, I recommend "Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light" by Born and Wolf.

In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.

 

[jrista]

In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.

If the onion rings were present in every photo of every light source, and if every OOF blur circle produced identical onion ring patterns, I would agree. However the candle lights produce no onion ringing at all, and the various electric lights produce differing onion ring patterns. Given that, it seems more logical to me that the source of the diffraction is external to the lens and camera. In other words, it's caused by the light sources themselves...say the glass or plastic bulbs surrounding whatever is actually emitting the light.

 

[jrista]

I am not spreading bad science. I'm explaining the ACTUAL nature of light. Light propagates as a diffracted wavefront, wherein each and every point along that wavefront results in secondary wavelets that constructively interfere to maintain the wavefront, except when it encounters an obstacle, in which case the interference is both constructive and destructive, thereby producing the familiar wave patterns, like an Airy Disc.

Jon, with due respect Dilbert is raising a point about diffraction not being inherent to light, but secondarily attributable to light based on the waveform model (he is wrong, of course).
Your post above and the quoted sections describes how diffraction is a property of light waves, but that would be applicable even if diffraction was attributed secondarily to light AFTER modeling it after waveforms IMO.

To find that answer, I recommend "Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light" by Born and Wolf.

So, regarding all of this. Are you saying there is a difference between mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves? To me, waves are waves. As much as I said that diffraction is inherent to light, light is a wave. Diffraction is inherent to waves. I mean, that's what the Huygen's Principal is. It isn't limited to light waves.

I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. Light IS waves. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means that all quantum particles are also waves.

Even though waves can move through materials, such as water and air, waves are simply the propagation of energy. I would argue, with Huygen's Principal backing me up, that the description of diffraction in an electromagnetic wavefront is also the description of diffraction in any wavefront. It's all the same thing..waves are waves. So it really wouldn't matter if we were talking about a "mechanical" wave propagating through water that passes through a slit, or sound, or light. The actual fundamental reason diffraction exists and exhibits the properties it does is because it is an intrinsic trait of the energy propagating via the wave, not the material the wave is propagating through.

 

[sagittariansrock]

In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.

If the onion rings were present in every photo of every light source, and if every OOF blur circle produced identical onion ring patterns, I would agree. However the candle lights produce no onion ringing at all, and the various electric lights produce differing onion ring patterns. Given that, it seems more logical to me that the source of the diffraction is external to the lens and camera. In other words, it's caused by the light sources themselves...say the glass or plastic bulbs surrounding whatever is actually emitting the light.

My knowledge of bokeh structure is far inferior to my knowledge of optics. However, the link you posted itself suggests that the onion ring is due to aspherical elements in the lens rather than diffraction.

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

One general note: diffraction is not caused by the light source. It is caused by objects in the path of light. You are suggesting it is happening at the level of the impurities in the light bulb, I am suggesting it is at the level of the lens elements. Also, even the candle light is not a pure light source. The yellow part is actually incandescent carbon particles that don't burn fully. Lens elements behave differently with different sources of light (in other words, diffraction characteristics will vary according to the nature of light emitted), so while it may not diffract candle light, it might diffract electric light. I don't have the Physics knowhow to predict the exact mechanism.

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum. But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.
I didn't say diffraction is limited to light waves. Light exhibits diffraction. Waves exhibit diffraction (quite independently). Hence light = waves. Is it that simple? No, because light has particulate properties, too.
You are right, light is not modeled after waves. Light is a wave. But then, it is also a particle. One doesn't imply the other, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive.

In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

 

[jrista]

In any case, I think the reason for the onion rings in this case is the aspherical elements rather than diffraction.

If the onion rings were present in every photo of every light source, and if every OOF blur circle produced identical onion ring patterns, I would agree. However the candle lights produce no onion ringing at all, and the various electric lights produce differing onion ring patterns. Given that, it seems more logical to me that the source of the diffraction is external to the lens and camera. In other words, it's caused by the light sources themselves...say the glass or plastic bulbs surrounding whatever is actually emitting the light.

My knowledge of bokeh structure is far inferior to my knowledge of optics. However, the link you posted itself suggests that the onion ring is due to aspherical elements in the lens rather than diffraction.

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

One general note: diffraction is not caused by the light source. It is caused by objects in the path of light. You are suggesting it is happening at the level of the impurities in the light bulb, I am suggesting it is at the level of the lens elements. Also, even the candle light is not a pure light source. The yellow part is actually incandescent carbon particles that don't burn fully. Lens elements behave differently with different sources of light (in other words, diffraction characteristics will vary according to the nature of light emitted), so while it may not diffract candle light, it might diffract electric light. I don't have the Physics knowhow to predict the exact mechanism.

I do agree, that the aspheric element can cause the onion ringing effect. However, and I am honestly trying to think logically here, would that not effectively REQUIRE that every light source exhibit the effect, and that every boke blur circle exhibit it in the same way? If the onion ringing, specifically in the case of Eldar's photos, was a consequence of the aspheric element, I truly do believe that the candles would have exhibited the effect as well. They would have to, since the effect is caused by the lens, and not a bulb or something else in proximity to (around or between) the light source itself.

Additionally, if you blow Eldar's sample images up, most of the effects on the blur circles themselves are inconsistent from circle to circle. If they were consistent, I would agree with you 100%, however they are not consistent. The lack of onion ringing in the candles and the inconcistencies with which each blur circle exhibits lead me to believe the problem is external to the lens.

That is not to say lenses cannot cause effects like this...they can. However I also believe that a $4000 lens would NOT be exhibiting onion ringing. It's a very noticable and ugly effect, very ugly effect, that I would not be spending $4000 on a lens that had that problem. I am a big fan of Canon glass, however I have great respect for Zeiss, and I cannot imagine them creating a lens like the Otus with such a nasty flaw.

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.
I didn't say diffraction is limited to light waves. Light exhibits diffraction. Waves exhibit diffraction (quite independently). Hence light = waves. Is it that simple? No, because light has particulate properties, too.
You are right, light is not modeled after waves. Light is a wave. But then, it is also a particle. One doesn't imply the other, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive.

In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

I think we pretty much agree on everything else.

 

[100]

I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. Light IS waves. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means that all quantum particles are also waves.

What exactly do you mean by "is"?
If you mean "is equal to" than you are basically saying that all quantum particles are light (which is untrue)

Diffraction isn’t inherent to waves because light is a wave, it’s inherent to waves period.

 

[sagittariansrock]

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!

 

[100]

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!

Diffraction applies also to mechanical waves (water for instance). Put a slit in a dike (did I just write that?) and see what happens when a wave hits.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I do agree, that the aspheric element can cause the onion ringing effect. However, and I am honestly trying to think logically here, would that not effectively REQUIRE that every light source exhibit the effect, and that every boke blur circle exhibit it in the same way? If the onion ringing, specifically in the case of Eldar's photos, was a consequence of the aspheric element, I truly do believe that the candles would have exhibited the effect as well. They would have to, since the effect is caused by the lens, and not a bulb or something else in proximity to (around or between) the light source itself.

Additionally, if you blow Eldar's sample images up, most of the effects on the blur circles themselves are inconsistent from circle to circle. If they were consistent, I would agree with you 100%, however they are not consistent. The lack of onion ringing in the candles and the inconcistencies with which each blur circle exhibits lead me to believe the problem is external to the lens.

That is not to say lenses cannot cause effects like this...they can. However I also believe that a $4000 lens would NOT be exhibiting onion ringing. It's a very noticable and ugly effect, very ugly effect, that I would not be spending $4000 on a lens that had that problem. I am a big fan of Canon glass, however I have great respect for Zeiss, and I cannot imagine them creating a lens like the Otus with such a nasty flaw.

I think this might be a rare phenomenon even for aspherical lenses, and it also might be due to sample variation. It might be a side-effect far outweighed by the advantages of correcting optical aberrations.
I found a lot of examples on internet fora about Zeiss lenses producing onion ring bokeh and that being correlated with aspherical elements. Of course, that does not imply causality.
I agree, if it is a 'flaw' then Zeiss won't have it in a $ 4000 lens. I'd like to think Zeiss won't have it in any lens, but least of all in the Otus. It might just be an unavoidable and acceptable issue.
It might be a good idea to contact Zeiss and ask, though. It might just be that copy. Have you seen any other review of the Otus having onion rings (unlike other Zeiss Asph lenses)?

 

[sagittariansrock]

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!

Diffraction applies also to mechanical waves (water for instance). Put a slit in a dike (did I just write that?) and see what happens when a wave hits.

Where did I say diffraction doesn't happen in mechanical waves?
Jrista asked (see below) if I thought there's any difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves, and to him wave is a wave. I responded to that by saying the difference is mechanical waves cannot propagate in vacuum. I also added the difference is irrelevant in this case.

I am familiar with the physics of diffraction.
Please understand the context first.

So, regarding all of this. Are you saying there is a difference between mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves? To me, waves are waves.

Is there a difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum. But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.

 

[100]

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!

Diffraction applies also to mechanical waves (water for instance). Put a slit in a dike (did I just write that?) and see what happens when a wave hits.

Where did I say diffraction doesn't happen in mechanical waves?
Jrista asked (see below) if I thought there's any difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves, and to him wave is a wave. I responded to that by saying the difference is mechanical waves cannot propagate in vacuum. I also added the difference is irrelevant in this case.

I am familiar with the physics of diffraction.
Please understand the context first.

So, regarding all of this. Are you saying there is a difference between mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves? To me, waves are waves.

Is there a difference in mechanical and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum. But that is not relevant here. Light has characteristics of an electromagnetic wave.

Why the hostility?
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it.
In one of your previous posts you wrote In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

So I thought you didn’t know…

 

[sagittariansrock]

Why the hostility?
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it.
In one of your previous posts you wrote In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

So I thought you didn’t know…

No hostility implied, my friend.
I merely asked you to understand the context, and then cited it with quotes.
With written posts its possible for statements to appear curt and brusque, and I apologize for any unintentional hostility that might have come across.
Is my intention clearer now?