Theories that challenge the orthodoxy quite rightly have a difficult reception. And while it is true that hidden-variable solutions fit in that category, there are some renowned phyicists that support this type of interpretation.
One of these is Antony Valentini of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Valentini supports the idea of non-locality, and has worked extensively on hidden-variable solutions, particularly the de Broglie-Bohm model. He proposes that the deeper determinism is hidden from us by statistical noise.
More controversially, he proposes that quantum mechnics might apply to matter in this epoch, but not necessarily always, hence ‘‘non-quantum’ … matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe’ .
It is an interesting idea, and may yet have exciting results. Afterall the pilot-wave theory made important contributions to the formation of what we now know as quantum mechanics, before being largely abandoned (see Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory?), and it would be interesting to see it back in the front of developments.
We need fresh ideas like these. Physics suffers from a fundamental epistemic incongruence:
‘For a theory that has the world’s finest physicists baffled, quantum mechanics is fantastically successful. … But it is also strange, frustrating and incomprehensible.’ (Chown, 2002)
It is the role of thinking to identify the starting points of the possible new solution paths. Valentini is doing just this. His approach is a bold one, , and we wish him well.
By comaprison, the cordus conjecture also supports a non-local hidden-variable model, though not the particular theory of de Broglie-Bohm. Our model is here http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0086
Regardless of what theory might finally emerge to be correct, the search for solutions within the hidden-variable family of designs is worth contemplating. It has the potential to unlock a more complete and coherent theory of fundamental physics. Let’s face it, quantum mechanics has been going for three-quarters of a century, and while its maths works well-enough, it still can’t give a coherent descriptive explanation of reality. Obviously something is going to have to change, and it remains to be seen whether QM is up to it.
Chown, M., 2002, Core reality, New Scientist
An Interview with Antony Valentini, 202, Metanexus
Antony Valentini , Wikipedia
Towler, M., 2009, Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory?
 Valentini, A., Subquantum Information and Computation. Pramana Journal of Physics, 2002. 59(2): p. 269-277. DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049.
They said it
‘I quickly decided that I personally didn’t like pilot-wave theory, partly because it seems to me that it throws out all the deep, amazing and experimentally verified links between modern physics and mathematics that motivate what I love about the subjects, getting nothing much in return. I don’t see a good reason to believe that research in this area is going to lead to something interesting, but those who do have every right to keep trying.’ Peter Woit, here
Bell’s warning: ‘Many [regard] investigating the roots of quantum reality as “crackpot physics”‘ Anil Ananthaswamy in New Scientist
‘Valentini will have a hard time convincing sceptics. But it could be worth it. “It would mean that physics was finally making progress on a problem on which we have been stuck for many decades,” says Smolin. “Right now we’re staring into a sort of quantum fog,” says Valentini. “If we admit that an unexplored level might lie behind it, a whole new world comes into focus.” ‘ Chown, M., 2002, Core reality, New Scientist
Just suppose the quantum world is built on more solid foundations. It could explain a lot of weird stuff, says Marcus Chown (Core reality)