why I find it objectionable in photon modeling
Suppose you have a box with two openings in it. Into the top opening you throw an apple. A few seconds later, from another opening on the bottom, emerges that same apple ... skinned, cored and sectioned. Now you open the box expecting to find a mechanism which performs this task. Instead you find nothing at all. Is this sensible in this universe?
In any phenomena in nature, that which governs the actions of things appears to demand a "show" of some sort. Things just don't happen by magic. There are "forms" attached to actions and even those which cannot be directly seen can invariably be demonstrated in some fashion on paper with a pencil (if they have differentiable parts or areas). That is, we can offer some sort of geometric solution.
Our mathematics consists of shorthand descriptions of those geometrical objects and actions which we see displayed all around us. The idea of form attached to interaction is of overbearing significance in this universe. It is not subject to remodeling by us into a non-geometric entities which have spatial extension or move through space.
Hence, there is a great difficulty with the modeling of the photon. Primarily, it should not be modeled as being wave or particle with just one wave model (the standard model of the photon). For particles, wave-particle duality is much less reprehensible because the particle is "right here at once" as either a particle or wave and is modeled as a localized superposition of waves or as a point source. The photon model requires that the photon be right here as a planar wave but no mechanism for turning a photon into a particle (localization) ... and no model of a particle-like photon is offered. The wave aspect is called upon to do double duty.
There is a "poof" factor involved here which requires that we suspend inquiry when more questions can honestly be asked. Like, "How is the photon energy localized in the photo-electric effect?". The standard answer is "wave-particle duality". That is, we can't inquire further ... we can only blindly accept what "cannot be explained in geometric terms".
Further inquiry shows just how bad this can get.
1st Law of Thermodynamics
The first law is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. It has a very small, conditional asterisk attached to it in the form of the uncertainty principle. But I believe that it would be conceded by any scientist that the character of the law is that of an immediate absolute ... by which I mean that it cannot be "delayed" for any significant duration. Like other conservation laws, it is obeyed right now ... not a week later.
So we have this in the photo-electric effect. That all the energy of a photon which is of measure e=hv is localized at the position of a single electron which is knocked out of an atom ... right here ... right now.
Given that the current model of the photon spreads out in planar fashion (it's electric field intensity varies as 1/r) ... how is it that all it's energy (e=hv) can be delivered at one point, all at once? How can the entire field (which may extend a billion light years in radius) collapse on a single electron instantaneously? How can one part of the photon know what another part is encountering perhaps millions of light years away?
Certainly, the superposition of multiple photons cannot be the answer because of the definite ea=hva restriction. With this rule in play, why don't values such as hva=8.37(ea) show up? Perhaps there is a reason I don't see and individual photon particles are "made up" on the spot by chance which all comply with the ea=hva requirement. This would be the only way out using the current model. But I see no evidence of such an explanation anywhere. It's as though the matter of photon localization has been passed over without resolution to my satisfaction and no scientist has any further questions.
Or, perhaps Faster Than Light transmission is involved?
If the outward expanding wave communicated nearly instantaneously (as I have proposed elsewhere for other reasons), a photon could be formed on the spot which complied with all currently understood requirements. But this is in contradiction with the aforementioned universal demand for form alloyed with interaction. For what reason would such a photon come into existence at just that time? Generally, a form carries its own implied or explicit reason with it as it goes about its business. A particle moves along with a momentum, charge, spin, etc. all there in one place ready to do what it does utilizing just what it is here and now.
The photon-particle model I support could solve the particle aspect.
My problem is to formulate an experiment to detect it. It should be differentiable from the planar wave. In my book, I strongly conjectured that the particle-like photon would not be polarizable since polarization requires that energy be taken from it. This would divide it and the e=hv requirement would be annulled.
I have since decided that if that individual photon were polarized it would have to be weakened and thus transformed into a particle-like photon of longer wavelength to restore the e=hv rule. If this were so, placing a prism in between the two polarizers should enable detection of a difference since the planar wave aspect would not be so affected. That form would simply be absorbed then and there. If you put red light through a polarizer whatever gets through is still red.
If done with individual photons, what gets through should be a different wavelength and therefore could be noticably diffracted, i.e. if we know beforehand that the photons going in are ultra-violet and they come through green ... my model would be a possible candidate explanation.
At any rate, for my model to succeed, some type of experiment done with an "individual photon detection system" should find an anomalous result ... or ... my goose is cooked. It's just got to be there somehow, someway.
By my lights ...
A real and true explanation consists of a statement that rules out all other specifically conceivable alternate explanations by means of a direct logical train of deduction for every given instance of the thing explained. A theory that provides blanket coverage (like "God did it" ... without multiple steps from general to specific) can never be accepted by any rational mind. The wave-particle duality explanation in regard to photon modeling is not a good explanation ... for the above reasons ... and is therefore unacceptable to me.
There is no such rationally acceptable thing as "Mystery Meat Logic"
Perhaps "God" isn't as good a designer as I am ;o)