> Yes, I asserting very minority view in physics, but I'm able to back it with video of real experiment. It is not a hand waving.

I think you may be rather confused about that video. I've watched what I think is the same video along with many other videos by the same experimenters (presented by the experimenters themselves!).

The waves in the water are not pilot waves. They kind-of-sort-of look like them. With one droplet, you get approximately the behavior that the pilot wave equation would predict, but the interesting bits are missing. If you observe the droplet twice (which you do in the video -- each frame is quite literally an observation), you get behavior that is completely inconsistent with an actual double-slit-experiment particle. If you add a second particle, the whole analogy breaks down: the pilot wave for two 2D particles is a function of five variables (time, x1, y1, x2, and y2), but the water wave is still just a function of three variables (time, x, and y).

But much more importantly, that video is a video of a bouncing water droplet and some surface waves. The droplet is a macroscopic droplet of water, and the waves are waves in a puddle of water. They obey the laws of fluid mechanics. If you grab the droplet while it's bouncing, it'll be gone and the water will still have waves. If you heat it up, it'll boil. If you turn the experiment upside down, everything will fall out and get things wet. Saying that the video proves that pilot waves exist is like saying that the experiments that play with "acoustic black holes" prove that black holes exist.

> Yeah, so when we will have vacuum cooled below 0K, it will confirm existence of ether.

I think you will face great difficulties in convincing anyone that works in the topic area of this.

> Yes, I asserting very minority view in physics, but I'm able to back it with video of real experiment. It is not a hand waving.

It's clear you do not understand the propagation of acoustically excited droplets are a limited analogy, not a perfect model of QM/QFT. The people doing those experiments would not agree with your statements or characterizations.

> Let be honest. The quick way to check understanding of something is to ask "why?" few times. People, who dedicates their entire lives to relativistic and/or quantum physics, are not able to answer even to single "why?". It's because of orthodox education.

This is willful arrogant ignorance and a gross mischaracterization of the world of physicists. They absolutely address more than "a single why?". You have not put forth the effort necessary to understand the broadly accepted answer, let alone invalidate it.