I am sorry but i have to disagree with you. Quantum mechanics and General Relativity helped us to explain many effects we thought were impossible to happen without breaking some physical law and helped us discover new phenomena of this kind. The flaw in your argument is right at the beginning: that fields have no physicality. Fact is they have and they can be assigned with determined values. As much I respect everyone's opinion, i am sorry to inform you that your request will never be taken in consideration.

I'm referencing to the fields you've been taught are physical, yes.

Quantum: i.e. quantity, materialism.

Fields have NO quantity. They cannot be quantified, as they have no physicality. Teaching fields in physics is counterproductive, since they are simply not physical. What subject of logical science is it when the first "rule" of learning about QM is accepting the FACT that it will never make sense? Even the leaders of QM have stated that it was just invented as abstractions to make their equations balance out.

First, GPS correction has to do with phase shift electromagnetic retardation, as stated by Dr Oleg D. Jefimenko, in his book "electromagnetic retardation and the theory of relativity" which is a doctorate level slap in the face for Einstein, disproving his theory with enough math to make you go nuts, just in case equations are your proving ground.

Next, what you may consider proof in the Maxwellian field equations never actually define a field, or what it is. They just reference the observable in how they work, in a more concrete fashion.

Do you guys realize that the most basic "rule" for learning QM and relativity is that you'll never understand it? These "virtual particles" have never been a tested result of any experiment, ever. Theyve been added as an abstraction that doesnt exist.

Physics alone is great, but the aspects that have more recently been added by the acclaimed Feynman and Einstein are, fabricated non-sensical abstractions for the sole purpose of making their equations balance out. Quantum theory and relativity are two different aspects of "science" that are trying and failing to explain what only accepting that physics is NOT everything, can. I have a physics mindset, I'm a physicist at heart. But QM and relativity are not physics. They are abstracted and have no place in reality, whereas Field Theory does explain all that has been pondered by quantum physicists. Understanding REAL fields, and not the physics interpretation, is that "new theory" that makes perfect sense. Only "downside" is, its not new. Plato & euclid studied it. Assuming everything is a particle is crazy, and if QM is right, then the definition of a field would be entirely null, because fields have no particles.

Field Theory, disregarding quantum field theory, is the only classical model that can explain all the effects we observe. Field theory is old, and it disproved ancient atomists, it can do it again, except the ancient atomists now go under the name "quantum physicists". I'm sorry if any of this sounded angry, but this is evidently a bad example at being more succint in my points lol

Youtube.com/watch?v=umXt2dmR4j4

Youtube.com/watch?v=VM-QXxqApv4&t

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4L4GKzbZRt_bmNNNlpyYkViMU0/view?usp=drivesdk

"I need to voice the fact that Field Theory, in respect to all that there is in the universe, is all inclusive and rebukes the idea of unicorn particles that are constantly bumping into each-other."
What are "unicorn particles"? And please show me how field theory rebukes the idea of particles bumping into eachother.

I'm confused what you understand under field theory, cause it is already a thing in physics.

Do you actually have a theory that can replace quantum field theory? and quantum mechanics? As in ... can you show me the construction and derivation of it? Or are your claims that there is an "ether" or that we will make exponentional advancement in technology unfounded?

Whether you like it or not, quantum mechanics is a reality. I have not seen any classical model or theory that could explain the quantum effects we observe. I'm not saying the currently used quantum theory is the correct one, but we need a quantum theory nevertheless.

Field theory has its many successes and quantum field theory (wich is the unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity by using field theory and second quantisation) is no exception to this. Quantum field theory is conceptually and at its core a beautifull theory, and is very succesfull at explaining a lot of things. (from elementary particles and experiments in colliders, to properties of solids in solid state physics)

It is true that quantum field theories in elementary particle physics become very difficult (and even "ugly" to some) if you try to work out the details. Things like gauge fixing, renormalisation, anomalies, mixing, the hierarchy problem, introducing more and more fields to make the models work. This might hint that we need somenthing different or more fundamental to explain things in a better (easier) way. This could be something completely new, or could be just another quantum field theory or something based on that. Also we don't exactly know how to combine general relativity with quantum field theory. Either way, (quantum) field theory and quantum mechanics will always be important parts of physics.