We like placeholders for the unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
The gist of it is, that quantum mechanics prevents vacuum from really being empty. Any finite-size system or any system with some kind of influence/force/anything will have a lowest energy state that is not actually zero energy but slightly above. Which means that this non-zero can fluctuate and on occasion pair-produce and pair-annihilate particles (probability inversely depending on pair energy).
And yes, this sounds like some kind of ether...
Note that there are many very widely used physical theories that include mathematical elements that are not necessarily assigned any physical meaning. The Poynting vector in classical electrodynamics, for example, carries no widely accepted physical meaning, even though it appears in many well verified and used calculations. This doesn't make the theory suspect or anything, I'm not trying to imply that - simply that virtual particles being "real" or not is a mostly philosophical question that has no widely accepted consensus.
What is proven is that e.g. vacuum energy / zero point energy exists (not actually in the StarGate sense of extractable energy, just that the lowest energy state of any physical system isn't zero), and that the Casimir effect exists. Vacuum energy directly leads to virtual particles through pair production (which is a proven mechanism, at high energies, for low energies we do suspect that there isn't a cutoff there), and also influences e.g. high-energy cosmic rays leading to an observed high-energy cutoff (although there are other possible explanations for that cutoff and lack of very-high-energy cosmic rays). The Casimir effect is most easily explained by virtual particles and vaccum energy.
In Hawking radiation, the idea is actually that virtual particles through interaction with the gravity of the black hole become real particles. The event horizon actually makes those wave functions collapse such that real particles start to exist. Hawking radiation hasn't been observed yet, however.
[1] non-Kopenhagen QM has the same consequences, it's just even harder to explain actually.
OTOH de Broglie for one of the central ideas in the development of quantum mechanics: he inverted Einstein's idea about photons, which were previously thought to be waves but Einstein showed how they came in particle-like quanta. de Broglie realised you could apply the same thinking to matter, which had previously been thought of as particles, and describe them using waves. Subsequent observation of wavelike dynamics (diffraction) of electrons in the Davisson-Germer experiment got de Broglie the Nobel prize.
Pretty much anything known entered through such placeholder, it's just that equations could be connected more easily.
It's not like Higgs field is something you can directly observe
Phlogiston is the classic example. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causa...
You find some un-identified variables.
Form some hypothesis, try to narrow it down.
Sometimes it is a discovery, new particle, and sometimes it is nothing.
But that is how science works.
At some point in time, everything was an unknown, and people had to work with unknowns.
This whole movement from the 'right' that all science has to know the answers ahead of time in order to justify spending money, is hindering progress. How can you know the results are worthwhile, in order to justify funding, before doing the research to know the results?
It's still useful to denote the area of study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjwQsKMh2v8
I like the river model which helps with the intuition.