prominent

You're not making space by shaking it, you're displacing the sand and allowing the space that is already there to be reorganized. It's basically a distortion to the sand "field".

I still don't see the reason for having to assume it is a particle. The intensity of the wave wouldn't enter the atom if there is not enough displacement occuring to allow the translation. See, if the displacement isn't happening frequently enough, then no translation can occur. It's like having a heavy object sit ontop of sand inside a jar, it won't sink to the bottom until you begin to shake it with enough frequency. Another way to put it is that the lower frequency light propagates more directly, yet with less distortion to space, hence when "traveling" through a medium can propagate more quickly in the direction it is going. The higher frequency light creates more distortion to space and thus in a medium its direction becomes more bent. You can see with this then that the higher frequency is bending more of space, causing the translation of energy to occur.

How is that proof that a light wave dissipates over distance? When you throw a rock into water, you're only throwing one. If you kept throwing rocks at key intervals so that pressure directed is constant, you'd eventually get the waves to be continuous because the whole body of water would be oscilating together. This is similar to how a small vibration on a bridge can build until the whole bridge is oscilating.

I don't understand why that has to be considered particle-like. The way I see it, light acts like a pressure against space, and the disturbance is the tension/vibration of this pressure. Just because you have a force against an electron doesn't mean it'll move unless there is a disturbance to the space allowing it to become displaced. If the frequency isn't high enough then it won't escape regardless of the pressure. In the same fashion, if I press my foot down on some sand, the harder I push down doesn't determine how far my foot sinks into the sand. I have to shift my foot around to displace the sand to get my foot further down. Note that the foot isn't being thrown into the sand, because like a wave, only the distortion gets propagated. If you look at light functioning this way, then it doesn't make sense to explain photoelectric effect with particles.

I don't see how that is the case because the frequency is the aspect related to the disturbance of the field (the actual shaking/moving of the field). Think of a rope being shook, and this shows that whether the rope is thick or thin, you can adjust the frequency to make it either rub slower or quicker. The intensity of the wave isn't forced forwards because the electromagnetic field isn't being moved forwards, just disturbed as a wave that translates the shape of the disturbance through so that things get shook at the end like they did at the beginning. So regardless of the intensity of the wave (the thickness/thinness), if the electromagnetic field is being disturbed and shook, it will move the electrons more when the frequency is raised to therefor add more disturbance to them, therefor causing them to get knocked off. In this way you don't have to explain light as a particle.

Apparently the photo-electric effect is used as a means to help prove that light exibits characteristics of particles. Wouldn't it make more sense that waves cause this effect? If a wave is merely a disturbance to the electromagnetic field, then based upon how strong the wave is determines if the electrons get knocked off right? Consider the field as a type of material, and a certain strength makes it feel more or less abbrassive (also explaining the more coarse appearance of the "photon clusters"), this would suggest it is not particles causing it, but that it is actually waves. Let me know how I am wrong, if I am.