[cwjohn (Chris)]

Steven

I’m stating the mainstream view which is supported by a vast majority of physicists who partake in research

Well we have moved from "all physicists" to the "vast majority". I suspect when pressed most of this "vast majority" would conclude that QFT describes rather than explains. I suspect they would not accept as a suitable description of a photon as:

Similarly the Lagrangian of an electromagnetic field defined as a dynamic system doesn’t require photons to be known beforehand either. A photon is a prediction of the local invariance of the Lagrangian under a U(1) or rotation transformation.

Here you state that a photon is in fact a "prediction" as defined by a Lagrangian etc which is a mathematical construct. You also describe it as a "vector". You also state it carries "intrinsic angular momentum" but at no stage do you state what "it" is. You also state QFT "tells us the conditions under which photons are created without providing an explanation as to how they are created."

So this "prediction" which is a "vector" is defined by a theory which says nothing about the creation of said "prediction" or "vector". Does this really make sense to you on reflection.

Furthermore you state that because QFT has predicted other particles (a fact that is beyond doubt) that ipso facto it explains "the ontological and epistomological basis of these particles". This is a logical fallacy which cannot be sustantiated on any evidential basis.

You already state you dont know how a photon is created (or QFT doesnt, I guess you may). If you believe you know what a photon is then state it simply, but not as a "prediction", or a "vector".

I thought religion was confusing???

Just kidding. I reached for one of my texts on QFT (Zee QFT in a nutshell 2003). In the intro he says

It struck me as limiting that even after some 75 years, the whole subject of QFT remains rooted in this harmonic paradigm (Schrodingers equations and extensions)... We have not been able to get away from the basic notions of oscillations and wave packets. Indeed, string theory, the heir to QFT is still firmly founded on this harmonic paradigm. Surely, a brilliant young physicist will one day take us beyond."

As to your question

I have to ask you the obvious question, is there any theory in physics that satisfies your criteria of providing a realistic approach?

As I have stated before all theories of physics that do not deal at the Plank level. Its not that I don't accept theories of physics at the quantum level. I certainly do, but I maintain that they are descriptive and predictive. They explain a real result, but they do not explain what is really happening. As Zee says when some brilliant person takes us beyond that barrier then we will see the next breakthrough in physics.

Just my opinion.