It's been more than a few years...
Given your complete lack of understanding when it comes to why physics is more than vacuous wordy explanations, along with your inability to recognise the term 'eigenstate' and that you also shy away from maths I do not believe you
ever did physics or maths beyond high school (ie took some mathematical degree).
I suppose that does make your statement true, it has been more than a few years. "Never" would imply you haven't done maths or physics in the last decade. Or lifetime.
I know you know what you know, but how about giving any thought to the possibility that you are not seeing the complete picture, like those who insisted the Earth was the center of the universe.
Of course I don't deny it's possible I, and mainstream physics, am wrong on this. Anyone who says otherwise would be unscientific. However, given the success of the models in question, it would be perfectly legitimate to say that even if there's some underlying model, so that QED or QCD are nothing but effective theories (which is a view many physicists happen to hold anyway) the view that when particles interact they do so via the exchange of coherent states which we view as particles.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it's probably valid to say "For all intents and purposes, it's a duck". Maybe in 100 years (or perhaps tomorrow) someone will come along with a model which explains all quantum phenomena
AND accurately predicts all experiment outcomes but without the need for virtual particle loops. But the effective theory of that will still be QED, just as the good approximation to relativity is Newtonian physics. Having a better, more encompassing model won't change the fact that doing the calculations and descriptions as if they are particle loops.
If I give you an closed box which weighs 1kg, does it matter what is inside? It'll have the same inertial properties if it's a box of water or a box of plastic. Until you are able to open the box, it is fine to say "It's a box full of water" (provided the box has a volume of 1 litre obviously). Someone else saying "Wrong, it's a box of air! It's easier to describe!" isn't more correct just because it might be something other than water. It is immaterial.
What if a photon is a burst of space traveling through the medium of space. What in the DSE does this theory not answer correctly?
It doesn't address anything other than make you think you've explained it in a way you think you can understand. Does it explain why the interference pattern goes when you measure which slit the photon goes through? Does it give the relationship between energy and frequency and momentum for the photon?
Whenever someone does what you're doing and say "I've explained [phenomena]" in a way which is obviously vacuous but none-the-less 'an answer' I am reminded of the religious answer for why the universe exists or how it came about, "God did it". That doesn't answer the question because you learn nothing from that 'theory'. Nothing to help you understand the universe, it's behaviour and it's completely unscientific. If I gave the answer "Because the sky is blue" you'd say "But that doesn't answer the question", yet "God did it" does? It's a dodge, it's something people tell themselves is "acceptable" because they cannot or will not accept that the answer is too complicated or unknown. You don't understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand the concept of a wave function and so you try to 'explain' the phenomena in terms you think you understand. The internet is littered with people who try to push their 'understanding' despite their understanding explains nothing. They are known as 'cranks'.
If a photon is a blob of space moving through space, what about the electron? The Sodium atom? A Bucky ball? They all do the same diffraction behaviour. Are they all ripples in space? What makes them different? How might we test your idea?
Can you admit you might be wrong, as you asked me to admit? Do you think it's a little silly to dismiss mainstream models which have stood the test of experiments by so many people in so many ways over such a long time without even learning something of the details? I only had to reach for my copy of 'Quantum Mechanics' by Eugen Merzbacjer to find an indepth discussion on how QM can model such things (you don't even need to go to QED, a field theory). It suggests also looking at Chapter 3 of Vol III of the Feynman lectures. I happen to have that textbook too and it spends many many pages talking about, explaining and modelling the double slit experiment.
If you learnt a bit of vector calculus and linear algebra, little more than the stuff taught to 1st year physicists, you could see just how elegant the QM description is.
And as for the graviton, why do you think all other forces and all the matter in the universe looks like being made up of tiny quanta but gravity shouldn't be? If moving objects alter a gravitational field what do you call the ripple of space as this alteration moves through space? Would you call it a particle, just as you call other ripples in space particles like the photon? If you would call it a particle, what is wrong with the name 'graviton'?