Thanks for the comment! There are actually many items to discuss here :)
wish you luck with finding empirical evidence to support your model!
Technically, I won't do it, as this is not my job. I am a theorist. What I can do is to interpret what experimentalists will (or won't) find, and draw the corresponding conclusions on the model (if they don't do it). Is the model excluded, is it still viable with respect to data, etc. Both excluding a model and discovering something allow us to move forward.
Just to clarify one important point: the model is not mine. It was proposed 10 years ago by other physicists. I only made predictions in this theoretical framework and compared them with data. Very often some physicists propose a model, other works out some specific implications, others work out some other part and so on. We all have different strengths :)
The article I refer to here lies definitely on the phenomenological side: we don't propose any model ourselves but study instead deeply an existing one in the light of recent data.
But it seems to me that we currently live in an age of particles when perhaps it would be very helpful to look at nature in terms of fields as well. Can a field be explained with particles?
I introduced the word "particle" here for the sole purpose of the readership (that I expect not to be physicists). The entire theoretical framework is of course defined in terms of fields: the model itself is a quantum field theory, and any given "particle" can thus be seen as an excitation of a field.