I'd be willing to debate our mainstream quantum theorists, point by point, on specific theoretic points they think are at issue., with just common sense as arbiter. -Arguing that ether theory is currently not amenable to mathematics is not valid for dismissing it. Physics discarded the ether dating back to the Michelson Morley Experiment in 1887 (MMX) which was designed to detect a "wind" effect which they assumed a stationary ether would produce as Earth moves through space. They believed that measuring light paths through space would show the wind-effect, based on their assumption that as the light is transmitted through the ether, an inertial effect would occur, and would be measurable by measuring a deviation of the path of light using optical refractive measurements. No wind effect was found, which physicists accepted as meaning there is no ether, which has continued to the present day. The MMX's assumptions however were not valid, because a non-stationary, or "drag" type of ether (an ether which is dragged with Earth as it moves through space) would not display the inertial behavior assumed in the MMX. Then in 1925, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment (MGPX) attempted to resolve this issue by performing measurements they believed would rule in, or out, a drag-type of ether. By 1925, the velocity of Earth's rotation was known. The MGPX also used measurements based on the Sagnac effect, in which two different light sources located at the equator of a rotating sphere are measured for the time of arrival of their light beams at a third location. -The MGPX also produced a null result for an ether. -Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity were becoming accepted in physics at the time, and the existence of an ether medium was dismissed again. I would dispute the concept behind those experiments, that measuring the behavior of light beams would correspond to how an ether behaves with respect to Earth's movement in space based on the idea that an ether would behave like a fluid in conducting light beams. -It must be granted that there is superficial evidence that an ether would behave like a fluid, especially the "wave" effect. However, in my ether model, waves represent something different from what was assumed in the MMX and MGPX. -In my ether model, there exists an "ocean" of "etheroidal" energy moieties, transitional between the elemental ether units and observable quantum units. Waves represent a "shoreline" effect where the etheroidal units are beginning to mix, transitionally, with the observable quantum units, such as bosons and fermions. However, the model of the ether I have proposed in this Thread would have it that both experiments that are cited for dismissing the ether were using false assumptions about how an ether behaves. -In my ether-model, the ley players are the elemental ether units, which act via vibration and resonance. They behave as elemental, uniform, energy units, acting linearly as their outward vibrations form transient connections with each other, serving as an underlying matrix upon which other forces, like quantum energies, are superimposed. Thus, as Earth moves through the ether, these elemental ether units would exist in the space near earth, and identical elemental ether units would also exist from earth itself, and they all would be in a state of constant resonance with each other. (This would correspond closest to a "drag" type of ether, but would not have been detected by the MGPX which was designed to rule out a drag type ether. -This process would be etheric not fluidic but electrical in nature, and would not be detectable with our quantum observations. -So the MMX and the MGPX did not rule out an ether. -Physics should not continue to automatically assume there is no ether.