it doesn't deny wave theory.

it simply implies that wave theory is not a complete theory.

in fact it implies a more complete picture called "wave-particle duality".

wave-like – diffraction
particle-like – photoelectric effect.
i.e. the nature of light or particles may depend on how it is being observed.

this duality is not limited to photons. electrons have been diffracted too.

now. what was the observation that implied the particle nature of light?

"In the photoelectric effect, it was observed that shining a light on certain metals would lead to an electric current in a circuit. Presumably, the light was knocking electrons out of the metal, causing current to flow. However, it was also observed that while a dim blue light was enough to cause a current, even the strongest, brightest red light caused no current at all. According to wave theory, the strength or amplitude of a light wave was in proportion to its brightness: a bright light should have been easily strong enough to create a large current. Yet, oddly, this was not so.

Einstein explained this conundrum by postulating that the electrons can receive energy from electromagnetic field only in discrete portions (quanta that were called photons): an amount of energy E that was related to the frequency, f of the light by
E = h*f
where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10-34 J seconds). Only photons of a high-enough frequency, (above a certain threshold value) could knock an electron free. For example, photons of blue light had sufficient energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did not. More intense light above the threshold frequency could release more electrons, but no amount of light below the threshold frequency could release an electron.

Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his theory of the photoelectric effect."

cheers

It sounds like you are searching for porno and you don't want people to find out. It's cool man. I'm totally with you.