Over the years I have been mulling a problem in metaphysics: the ontological mysteries of Quantum Mechanics. I have been developing a theory in this regard (see, for example, The Ontology of Time and my unresolved alternatives in Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 98-99, III.4.1), and now, informed by some recent discoveries and publications in the sciences (and finally a stronger understanding of EPR experiments), I am able to write up a proposal intelligibly enough for an actual physicist to evaluate it.
This has at long last resulted in a draft work, entirely preliminary, entitled "Philosophy, Relativity, and Quantum Entanglement: Proposing a Classical Explanation of the EPR Experiment" (a very first draft of which I pre-circulated among close colleagues in April). It's thesis: quantum entanglement phenomena, as exemplified in any form of the EPR experiment, can be wholly explained by general relativity, if certain premises are adopted which may not be popular but which contradict no scientific observations to date. Those premises are that spacetime is an entity akin to particles themselves (and that relativity theory describes an actual geometry of that entity), and that the specific properties of particles which are subject to entanglement are fully caused by normal massless boson interactions between a particle at the instant it forms and the instant it decoheres. Given those two premises (and the uncontroversial premise that relativity theory is true), it is theoretically possible to deductively predict all entanglement phenomena including the results of every EPR experiment, without recourse to any special theory of quantum mechanics.
Whether this is feasible or not requires the assessment of an expert in quantum mechanics and relativity theory. So I am asking (1) everyone who is an actual physicist to review and critique the paper, (2) everyone who has a good relationship with a physicist to ask them to review and critique the paper, and (3) anyone to supply the document to any online list or group of physicists who would be keen to review and critique the paper (don't harass lists or groups that won't be interested, query them first).
As this is out of my field, I fully expect it's possible my thesis is erroneous or untenable for reasons presently unknown to me. But even if that's the case, I'll regard it fully worthwhile to understand why. So I welcome any patient explanation to that effect from an actual expert (and it will be helpful if you identify your credentials). Whereas if it is tenable, but needs revision or correction, I'll certainly want to hear about that.
To all who review and critique it, you can annotate it in MS Word and email the annotated copy back to me (at email@example.com). To download the Word 97 file of the current draft document, click here. Thanks to all who can help with this. If anything significant comes of this, I will post updates in the following comments section.