Dear Alan Kadin,
Thank you for entering your first-class essay in this is contest. I am in full agreement with almost everything you say. Most particularly with your emphasis on nonlinearity, typically masked by Hilbert space linearity.
You focus on replacing the QM physically unreal linearly polarized (LP) superposition of R and L wave functions for a photon, with physically real circularly polarized (CP) photons. The analog for particles is the superposition of 'spin up' and "spin down' states with striking formal resemblance to the QM LP model of the photon.
A nonlinear internal circulation of flow within the local field that is sustained and has the approximate behavior of a (non-point) local peak intensity can, FAPP, be conceived of as a 'particle' (or at least a dipole) in the localized wave. This intrinsic spin of the local particle then has more the character of the CP photon, and does not require a local B field for its definition, although a local B field will cause the spin to align or anti-align with the field, as per Stern-Gerlach, and as per your treatment in figure 7.
In my essay I begin by showing how counting-based measurement leads to Hilbert-space-like feature representation, and conservation of these features yield eigenvalue equations. This, as you note, has led to a fascination with the (admittedly fascinating!) math, at the expense of physical realism.
I then focus on Bell's theorem and a local physical model of magnetic dipoles that yields exactly the same results as quantum mechanics and as experiment. This, of course, is what Bell claims to be impossible. I suggest that Bell was confused and mis-identified Pauli's provisional precession eigenvalue equation with Dirac's fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation with the result that he (mis-)interpreted the SG scattering, an indirect measure of spin, as spin itself, thus requiring only two possible outcomes, an obvious conflict with the observed scattered distribution. Bell's constraint guarantees that no local model will work, but is a meaningless quantum mechanical artifact, as you say.
I hope you read my essay and I look forward to your comments. I find your essay a marvelous contribution to this contest.
In particular, in your figure 7 you state that "each spin will rotate into alignment with measurement field". This represents a decrease in precession-based energy and a corresponding increase in the deflectional energy. I've solved this energy problem and show that it yields measurements of deflection that violate Bell's theorem, supposedly impossible. Bell's imposition of constraints on these measurements, based on his oversimplification of the physics (he assumes precession remains unchanged) is not a basic part of quantum mechanics, but has nevertheless been used to banish the most fundamental reality: local realism. As you note, this admonition has become virtually religious dogma, and must change if physics is to advance.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman