Michael,
Now passing on through the double-slit ... I have written extensively on the double-slit in fqxi blogs some 2 years ago and in my paper "A Plausible Explanation for the Double-slit Experiment in Physics" (if you google the title you may still find it). This explanation also appears in my Chapter, "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law" (see essay references).
... let me first explain what I don't believe. I don't believe in 'particle trajectories' of light that go through one or the other slit. And I don't believe the same photon/electron emitted at the 'source' is the same photon/electron detected at the 'sensor'. These, in my view, are separate 'events'. Simply put, I don't believe in the Photon Hypothesis! And have shown PH to be contradicted by CSL (see End Note II). In my humble opinion, much of the illogical contortions and confusion with the double-slit experiment is unnecessarily created by this faulty 'physical view' we have. A little like with magic tricks. We are misled by 'the magician' to believe and expect certain outcomes, thus mentally distracted. While magically and miraculously the rabbit is pulled from the magician's hat!
So what is my view on this? Energy propagates continuously as a wave, while energy manifests discretely through interactions. At the 'source' what is emitted is a 'burst of energy' (down perhaps to the Planck constant) which propagates continuously as a wave. If you wish to call this 'burst of energy' a 'wave pocket' you can. But I find this unnecessary and misleading. The wave goes through both slits (as all good waves always do) and these waves now on the other side of the slits will naturally interfere and create the interference pattern we see. And this same phenomenon happens whether we emit a small amount of discrete energy in single emissions or a continuous beam. But of course when the energy in single emissions is so small, the technology of detecting these will become more sophisticated.
Thus, to your list of questions...
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes
5)if that is known to happen, yes
6)When a detector is used to determine through 'which slit the photon goes through' (the whole idea sounds silly to me, but as a manner of speaking) because such detection would involve interacting with the light wave, the interference pattern will be effected. A little like poking a finger in a peek hole through which a stream of sunlight is projected onto a wall in a darkened room. The light pattern on the wall will change and may even entirely disappear. I have read somewhere (forgot where) that such experiments were done with 'which way detectors' minimally interacting with the light producing minimal interference. In those cases, as I recall, the interference pattern was 'mixed', a little of both. Makes sense to me!
7)Yes, energy/light does propagate continuously. As for 'wave pocket', see my comment above. Further, I am really not all that convinced about the 'absorption/emission' of energy always been units of h. This may be what we can measure because our measurement regime makes h the standard. But I just don't think Nature follows Man's Law! In my formulation and humble opinion, the absorption/emission of energy may happen in more variety of ways. But we just wont be able to 'see it'. In this connection, I should mention an interesting result about Planck's constant. (see my references in the essay). Briefly, I show that Planck's constant is the 'eta' that defines Kelvin temperature scale! Thus h becomes a fundamental standard in our measurement regiment. If we are to measure Kelvin degrees, we would require that the benchmark standard 'eta' be h.
8)Not sure I understand what you mean by 'infinitely thinning out eta'. As 'prime physis', I leave eta undefined. No real need to define it, either. But if you mean the wave that goes through the slits, this would spread over the entire detection screen. If that is what you mean, than 'yes' to that too!
Hope I answered some of your questions while not raising too many more!
Constantinos
PS. Not that it matters, but it would be useful to have a 'mental profile' of the people I am corresponding with. I know you are somewhere in Europe. Where? And what are you doing there?