Sorry but the fact you are "credentialed physicist" is no evidence that your ideas have any kind of validity, and actually they haven't. Bureaucracy turned out to be more often than not a good filter of competence in science, and, as I explained, scientific research cannot survive without any proper filter whenever a collective dimension of research and/or a discernment of useful public money spending are needed, but failures in the current bureaucratic system of credentials distribution may occur as well. I have extensively studied another case of a highly "credentialed physicist" with nonsensical ideas that even became popular and the author mistaken as the genius of the century in the French public, due to the lack of understanding of physics from the part of editors of scientific popularization magazines.
Now the fact is, the wide acceptance of standard quantum theory is not the result of any dogmatism, even though I do observe that some dogmatic behaviors, an effect of inertia, also occur in the academic community, namely as concerns the details of undergraduate curriculum, the precise way in which fundamental theories are introduced, and due to which I found the necessity to leave the system and thus virtually throw my painfully acquired math PhD to the toilet in order to develop my work in this field. Nor is it due to any kind of social acceptability of the "shut up and calculate" attitude and the current formulation of physics by Hilbert spaces, or any comfort with the lack of classical realism, which are absolutely not the case, as we do find lots of high level physicists with the very same loud discontent which you express about this current state of science, and thus dedicating their research to their dream of restoring such a classical realism, especially in the form of Bohmian mechanics.
No. As incredible as it may sound, the rude fact is that the acceptation of quantum physics with all its non-realistic abstraction was forced by the physical reality itself upon our rebel community of usually classical realist physicists, most of whom remain desperate about this discrepancy of Nature's verdict with their deeply rooted philosophical expectations. And notwithstanding this body of knowledge, many of them are still pushed by their philosophical prejudices to keep dreaming that this verdict of Nature may be not final and that an opposite one should be expected for some utopian future. The real situation is that they found themselves obliged to accept quantum theory by its incredibly amazing success in correctly predicting the results of about any physical experiment that may be thought of, and by the evidence they do have of how desperate is any try to explain these experimental results in "realistic" manners.
In this circumstance, any idea, as what you suggest, that the true laws of physics would be so totally different from accepted quantum physics that local realism would be true (so that, for example, quantum computers would be fundamentally impossible), is absolutely ridiculous, because, logically, it is just absolutely impossible for any 2 so widely different theories to have any sort of accurate agreement on any significant range of predictions. Such widely different theories might accidentally coincide on 2 or 3 cases of experimental results ; however such agreement would quickly fail as soon as things are checked in significant accuracy and other experimental conditions are considered, and this idea of accidental coincidence of some range of predictions between widely different theories is obviously unable to account for the amazing systematic accuracy of the verifications of quantum physics in millions of widely different experiments that have already been made until now.
Now what I just explained here, and this unfortunate phenomenon of abundance of so many people who cannot admit scientific results but wrongly and confidently accuse the physics community of dogmatism and so on due to their ignorance of the current state of science, is things well-known by the physics community. That is the phenomenon of crackpot. Please document yourself (my text first linked above is just an example, many other scientists such as John Baez wrote about it as well) on what "crackpot" means and how scientists have very legitimate reasons to be upset and just reject without further discussion these popular expressions of proud ignorance, this popular cult of stupidity, this mental pollution that is the worst enemy of the progress of science. (On a related aspects of things, that article is also interesting).
