All efforts to resolve the quantum dilemmas that you've addressed are to be commended. It seems obvious to me that we are missing something big here as well. The trick, of course, is to devise an alternative that is not just a change in interpretation. To prevail, an alternative needs to predict physical behavior that conflicts with the predictions of the standard interpretation, and then be shown by experiment to be truer to reality.
Though my model (playfully called the Rotonian model in my essay) does not address these issues directly, I think it does yield some clues by virtue of its application to cosmology. Not mentioned in the essay is the fact that the model leads to a prediction for the value of Newton's constant as a product of other constants, which relate back to quantum theory. We get
G = 8(rho_mu/rho_N) (c^2 a_0/m_e),
where the ratio in the first parentheses is the mass-equivalent of the density of the cosmic background radiation to the nuclear saturation density, and the second ratio is the light constant squared times the Bohr radius to the electron mass.
This can be rewritten in terms of h and the fine structure constant, alpha:
G = (4/pi * alpha) (rho_mu/rho_N) (h * c/m_e).
The measured value of the nuclear saturation density is variably quoted over a range of a few percent. The cosmic background energy density has been more accurately measured. So this relation is at least very nearly true--either by coincidence or by "design." (No divinity intended.)
Note that calling the cosmic background energy density (as with its temperature) a constant is not an accident. In Big Bang cosmology this number changes. In my model it doesn't because I don't think there was a Big Bang.
If the "Rotonian" ideas about gravity are correct, many of our ideas about the physical world would need to change.
We could determine that these ideas are wrong and the standard (or other) ones should prevail by empirically answering the simple question in the essay: To oscillate or not to oscillate?
