How big is a visible photon?

It makes more sense if you think of the polariser sheets as fences with vertical bars, and light like a string going through between two bars and being wiggled. If the direction of the waves in the string are at right-angles to the slit, the wave can't propagate through the bars. If the wave is at an angle, then some of the wave gets through, with a maximum of 100% when the wave wiggles up and down in the same direction as the slit. In this model you can visualise how three 45-degree slits will allow some light to go through even though two 90 degree slits don't -- the light is transformed by its passage through the polarisers. Where QM people get themselves confused is that they assume that the light is not transformed, even though it clearly is... I.e.: If the polarisers didn't rotate the angle of the light waves, then successive aligned polarisers would result in very close to 0 light making it through, but this is not what happens. (Excluding losses due to non-polariser-related effects) All of this goes back to a fundamental confusion between two possibilities: 1) Is it the EM field in free space that is quantised? OR 2) Is it just the interactions of the EM field with matter that are quantised? If you actually run the experiments to check which one, it turns out that (2) is true, but most QM people think (1) is true because most of the time they're indistinguishable. See this video for such an experiment: [VIDEO]

Yeah I was also surprised to find that photons can be really big: [VIDEO] Before I saw the experiments in that video, I assumed photons were about as wide as their wavelength.

I know it's not exactly Nature, but I like this one for the approachable and intuitive explanation: [VIDEO] Fundamentally, you have to believe in nonsense such as kilometer-sized particles that are also infinitesimal if your point of view is that photons are particles. Many of the "mysteries" of Quantum Mechanics vanish if keep in the back of your mind that QM is just a bag of mathematical tricks that "work" in specific scenarios to solve practical problems, but aren't a model of "what actually occurs". Practically all of it is restricted to statistical predictions related to matter. Remove matter or remove statistics and then the models are no longer valid. I'm not making this up. Go dig up any of the original QM papers and these assumptions and/or constraints are called out in the first few paragraphs.

I am not a physicist but fun fact, In transit there is no such thing as a photon(electro magnetic waves can transit at any energy level) however light can only interact with matter at discrete energy levels, so the photon(a discrete energy level of light) only exists there, at the interaction with matter. For some very good practical optics you can do a lot worse than the Huygens Optics youtube channel. [VIDEO]

My understanding is that a lot of the weirdness is that there may be no such thing as a photon, that is, what we call a photon is the em field interacting with matter(electrons really), in transit there is no such thing as a "single photon" That is, the em field is not quantized( or at least not quantized at the level of a photon) It is very possible to have your em field at "sub photon level" and the electrons at the far end will accumulate energy until a photon level is reached and presto a single photon experiment. What it is actually measuring I am not sure. [VIDEO] (Huygens Optics -How big is a visible photon?)