I think the question of whether field lines are real is more of a philosophical (of physics) question so it usually falls outside the scope of introductory material on E&M. However, some texts like Purcell and Morin do kinda take a stance on whether fields are real: "since it works, it doesn’t make any difference."

So, a bit like how the conventional depiction of electric flow is in the opposite direction of the actual electron travel?

It doesn't matter in terms of the math (in the vast majority of situations), so while the conventional idea of electric flow is incorrect, we keep it anyway.

I think it is closer to the conventional view of current as the travel of electrons down a wire.

Current moves far faster than electrons. it is more similar to a wave in the ocean with the electrons being the water molecule.

As a result, and counterintuitively for most, the speed of electrons will give you a completely wrong answer for when a light will turn on after you flip a switch.

> Current moves far faster than electrons.

Current is the movement of charges. It cannot “move” faster than said charges. (Or, perhaps, you meant the electomotive force that makes the electrons move along the wire, then sure, that thing spreads pretty quickly.)

yes, the EM force, Field, or whatever it is called. I still struggle, mostly because I was taught a fundamentally flawed model for how electrical power is transmitted.

Current is about the throughput of electrical charge at a specific point of an electrical circuit, while what you're describing seems to be about the latency or the speed of electricity.

Very much this. The (standard model's) "answer" is that the four vector potential probably is the "most real" and we're all just excitons along for the ride.

At some point the definitions become almost circular and opinions about what it fundamental have shifted a bit over the centuries. The cgs system of units -- which differs profoundly from SI in the treatment of electromagnetism -- was associated with those who viewed D and H rather than E and B the most fundamental. I'm quite happy with the level of theory used being appropriate to solve the problem at hand. There's always a bit of wiggle room around exactly what that problem is, however ;-)

it works for a physics test, but is also part of the problem, as it misleads and prevents conceptualization, even for simple problems.

It’s like saying that rain falls where there are blue regions on the weather map :)

we can fix that.

the number of electric field lines, depends on the strength of an electric field. ,

isn't that a special case of Plato's argument that "triangles aren't real. show me a perfect triangle...you can't, you can only show representations of a perfect triangle"

Your comment could be reduced to "lines arent real. show me a perfect line"