>I can explain everything with standing EM waves

Bullshit.

Explain the existence of electrically neutral particles like neutrinos and why they're able to interact at all with other particles.

> Ugly = wrong, just look at history of bad / wrong theories.

No, ugly = ugly and wrong = wrong. Physics has no reason to be elegant to humans. The Standard model is incomplete (dark matter/energy, quantum gravity, and antimatter imbalance not explained) and inelegant, but has made predictions which up until now have worked for the rest of particle physics. In the sense of incompleteness, it could be considered "wrong". However, it is effective at predicting everything we are able to test here on Earth, so in that sense it is "right".

In fact, scientists at the LHC have been trying very hard, to no avail, to find deviations to the standard model.

> Hasn't produced anything useful, another hallmark of something very wrong.

Bad predictions and inconsistency with reality are the hallmark of something wrong. Subatomic physics isn't really that useful (we have no real use for gluons, neutrinos, etc), but we still do test theories of it.

>Ugly = wrong

This isn’t necessarily always the case, just look at the most efficient way to fit 17 squares in a larger square.