But, to "solve" the wave /particle conundrum, I like to think of it as fields all the way down. A "particle" is then a localized and quantisized interaction of said field with another field.
If you think of particles as small billiard balls flying through space on some ballistic trajectory, you'll soon run into all kinds of trouble and the mental model breaks down.
Or in insisting on referring to the electron as a particle.
“We begin by throwing an ultra-microscopic object — perhaps a photon, or an electron, or a neutrino”
However note that we can only perturb the em field in photon sized energy levels, and we can only pick up disturbances of the em field in photon sized bunches as well. Not sure what this implies for how em field energy is accumulated on electrons in order for us to detect it.
I don't agree with this. You can absolutely consider a classical (non-quantized) EM field interacting with quantized matter. This semi-classical model can describe the photoelectric effect, but it cannot describe other experimental observations such as sub-poissonian photo-detections / photon anti-bunching.
In fact the photon may not actually exist. and I have questions as to what "single photon experiments" are actually measuring. let me explain.
The EM field is not quantized, or at least not quantized at the level of a photon, what we call a photon is the interaction of the EM field with matter, or more precisely with the electron shell of matter. it is the sound of the wave breaking on the shore, not the wave.
Now none of this actually matters as the only method we have of interacting with the EM field is through matter(electrons really) so we can only measure it in photon sized increments.