That quantum history you gave is about 6 very thick textbooks short of how it all came together, but I grant your point even if you refuse to get it. You do not have any evidence of your aether either physical or theoretical.
Have you ever opened a real quantum physics textbook like Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-42241-3? You see all the math?
If you understood the math you would know why QM is so powerful. You have nothing to compare.
That is the level of detailed math YOU need to formulate, YOU need to present, before anyone is going to consider your aether.
Re: To summarize the most basic partsRe: Actual origin of QM
That code was not from a civilization past present or future, was it. It was natural, wasn’t it. From the etheric energy? The vibrations of the elemental ether units found a way to communicate with you? Is there more in this message than you are revealing? What else does it say? What are you hiding?
If an ether exists, it would have to be universal. If universal, it would have had to arise first-causally. -A rational substrate at the very beginning could only have been original space. -Original space would have differed from space as it is now in that it would have been "purer," free from everything else, such as forces. It could, then, have "shimmered," with extremely tiny "elemental" point-like localities in a state of perfect, or ideal, reciprocal oscillation. Then, my Model proposes, neighboring "points" underwent oscillatory fatigue, and moved toward each other, as in the well-known depiction of "Yin and Yang," which shows a pair of tear-drop shaped units joining together. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example.)
And he goes on like this for 4 more paragraphs. Amazing.
Can anyone find out what this guy is on? I might like to try me some of that.
It would not be fair to argue with my Model based on the present assumption of the consensus that the standard Model is established factual reality, which I suspect underlays the criticism. In fairness to this Ether Model, that kind of assumption should not be used to dispute it.
That is precisely why your model must be rejected. You have no evidence. The standard model has literally 100s of millions of data points to its efficacy from almost a hundred years of bubble chambers to the LHC. There is evidence for the standard model. We know it is incomplete but we have hard physical evidence the standard model is a legitimate physical phenomenon. You provide no such evidence of your Ether.
Math is the language of science. If you don't speak it you have no voice in any debate. You have provided no model (real model as in mathematical structure) for science to even consider.
Science is the study of nature. Nature does not deal in fair. Such a concept does not exist in nature or science. The only things we care about are the legitimacy of the physical observations and the structure of the math used to describe the phenomenon. You have provided neither.
If you want consideration of your Ether, you ARE REQUIRED to provide a consistent rigorous mathematical framework showing the operations of your model and you ARE REQUIRED to provide physical evidence of its efficacy.
Until you punch BOTH tickets to the pleasure of the science community then you have nothing to present to us. Your model exists only in your mind and will not be considered until you provide both of the above.
And, frankly, a complaint of not fair is a childish lamentation unworthy of any legitimate scientist.
My Model is based on proposing the undetected existence of a universal ether which underpins the quantum dynamics we observe.
Your "model" is based on your wishful thinking and undetected entities your mind has conjured. That is religion.