Olbers' Paradox
Mathis doesn't seem to have anything on his website about Olbers' paradox, but I emailed him the question and maybe he'll answer. Maybe he'll agree that the matter in the universe is finite, which I think is plausible, but I think space has to be infinite, since "boundaries" would have to be further extensions of the universe. He may answer alternatively that most of the photons are infrared or microwave, which may be about as bright at night as in daytime. I don't know if that's the case.

Mathis' Photon Model
Mathis has a videoclip of his model at http://milesmathis.com/wave.wmv or http://milesmathis.com/wave.mov.

Light Pressure Article
In his recent brief post on Photon Spin at http://milesmathis.com/photonspin.pdf he referred to this article, "Orbital momentum of light" at http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/physics/research/groups/optics~.
The brief article says this.
It has been known since the middle ages that light exerts a radiation pressure. Not so well known is that light also exerts a twist. The intricate nature of this twist was not recognised until the 1990s and we have been working on it ever since. Beyond the fascination of setting microscopic objects into rotation, this orbital angular momentum may hold the key to better communication sensing and imaging systems.
Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM) The phase fronts of light beams in orbital angular momentum (OAM) eigenstates rotate, clockwise for positive OAM values, anti-clockwise for negative values. The phase front with 0 OAM doesn't rotate at all.

Photon Model in Article
Here's an illustration of that photon model: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_220068_en.gif

OAM = -1 hbar per photon (right-hand helical phase front)

That's similar to Kanarev's model, I think, but not real similar to Mathis'.

Photon Angular Momentum
In his Photon Spin post, Mathis commented.
What that [] doesn't say explicitly is that this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly "set (real) objects into rotation," could it? And if that is so, then this new knowledge that Prof. Miles Padgett is admitting must conflict strongly with the current gauge math, which gives photons no mass, no radius, and no real spin. Prof. Padgett says that the OAM may lead to new technology, but he does not tell you that it must overturn the foundations of quantum mechanics. What this real spin does, and must do, is redefine the entire nature of light, leading us to a totally new theory of photons and the photon field. In short, this experimental data is a strong indication of my new theory of photons and charge, which demands that photons must have real spin, real radius, and real mass equivalence.

Photons with Real Properties?
Charles, don't you think it makes sense that photons would have real size, substance and spin in order to have momentum, energy, pressure, and to have an effect on other matter?