The dBB wave function has, as well as the usual QM wave function, nothing to do with the electromagnetic potentials.  It is a function with a different meaning (it defines probabilities), defined on a completely different space (the configuration space), and appears in completely different theories (in all quantum theories, even if they do not describe the EM field at all).

The EM potentials are, of course, also hidden variables - because of gauge freedom, we have no way to measure them directly.  All what we can measure is the EM field, some combinations of its derivatives.  

Because quantum theories which do not describe the EM field have the same conceptual and interpretational problems, these problems cannot be caused by some problems of electromagnetic theory.  

I suppose you did not study yet both papers I referred to. The Maxwell-Lorentz theory is an incomplete and an inconsistent theory with respect to my consistent General Classical Electrodynamics (GCED), which predicts much more than just the Maxwellian "EM fields". So we do have ways to measure more classical electrodynamical effects beyond what is described by Maxwellian CED, and we did this already many times. But if we turn a blind eye to experimental science, physics theory gets overly complicated eventually, riddled by counter intuitive notions like "hidden" variables. First one should apply Ockam's razor rigorously with respect to Maxwell's CED  (see the consistent  'Special CED' chapter in my paper), then one can easily generalise Special CED into General CED. My question is, how does GCED affects QM or DBB theory?

The so called "gauge freedom" of CED is the consequence of a false premise, in disagreement with observations. GCED is based on determinate potentials: the Lorenz "gauge" condition is a physical condition valid for magnetostatics only, while classical electrodynamics in general requires a more general field condition that is rooted in charge conservation. I assume that the arbitrary

Of course, even as an alternative scientist, you have to make choices what to evaluate and what to ignore without evaluation.  Else you end up evaluating astrology, UFOs and parapsychology. Once you make choices what to ignore, you will sometimes err.  Such is life.  

My choice was to accept experimental claims of mainstream science, and to ignore claims about experiments which prove them wrong. Closely related is the choice to ignore claims that classical EM theory is wrong, given that the mainstream claims that it is fully supported by all their observations. 

Note also that mainstream physics is not at all "riddled by hidden variables", but openly rejects them.  It is the point of my position that I, instead, defend them and argue in favor of their reintroduction into mainstream physics.  

But to answer your last question is possible anyway:  Whatever the modifications of some classical theory, as long as it is described in the usual classical way (standard Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism) it will not affect  QM at all.  It may affect DBB theory if the Hamiltonian differs from the classical form H=p²/2 + V(q).  

Why do you want a "new-age" hidden variable theory, if you ignore "claims" about experiments that might prove the Born-Bohr interpretation of QM wrong? Then we can simply do with QM (and SR and GR, and all the superstring flavours no one understands). Ampere, and the great Maxwell were against the Lorentz force law (which is Grassman force as special 'magnetostatics' case), if one studies Maxwell's treatise more closely. They were in favour of other force laws, but if one chooses to ignore experimental data that may disprove a standard theory (such as the Lorentz force), or is unexplained by standard theory, then one limits oneself very much.  In that case it is doubtful if the hidden variable theory will turn out to be simpler than standard Born-Bohr QM. And I always assumed that sufficient experimental data is the anti dote against all kinds of unrealistic world views and pseudo scientific explanations.  Am I wrong?

Btw, the testable classical 'beyond standard CED' effects described by GCED have nothing in common with astrology, UFOs, parapsychology etc ..   If you think I am a pseudo scientists (or a crackpot, whatever stupid name calling applied by "rigorous scientists"), then just read my paper, that will change your mind, Ilja. Now that you mentioned UFOs (etc), you are almost obliged to debunk my GCED paper straight away.  I see a connection with DBB theory and GCED, since the nature of the pilot wave is not clearly defined originally.

First of all, I ignore claims which I think are unreliable, because I think they are unreliable. This has nothing to do with my attempts to find better interpretations of quantum theory.  

If there are interesting experimental data in contradiction with established theory, that would be fine.  There are none, at least not accepted one by the mainstream.  If the mainstream is wrong not accepting them, that's not nice, but I'm too far from experiment to have an opinion about this. 

DBB is simpler than Copenhagen QM, and this holds independent of the classical theories which are considered. 

And, no, I'm not obliged to debunk any paper about any domain where I do not have sufficient knowledge.  Your paper shares a lot with astrology, UFOs and parapsychology from my personal position:  I do not have sufficient knowledge to debunk them, without spending much time to find out what is established in these domains, and I do not have sufficient belief that they are correct to decide to spend a lot of time for them.  

And I see no connection between EM fied (described by whatever theory) and the wave function.  They are completely different mathematical objects.  As a mathematical object, the wave function of QT, which is also the pilot wave of dBB, is very well defined, and this was done already originally.  

C'mon, this is not going anywhere, you answers are not constructive, and comparing my ideas with astrology (which has nothing to do with UFOs or parapsychology, talk to the CIA researchers who investigated these subjects) is not intelligent.  The electromagnetic potentials and the quantum wave function are on the same page, even in the same equation, for sure. The pseudo scientific notion of "gauge invariance" underlies the indeterminism of QM, and since "gauge invariance" started with Maxwell's CED potentials maybe one should study a determinate CED theory without "gauge freedom" in order to find a determinate wave mechanics theory.

I am not saying the standard transverse EM fields are tied to the quantum wave, but longitudinal electric waves in vacuum may explain the nature of the DBB pilot wave.

Again, read my GCED paper, which solves three inconsistencies that are present in standard CED (for this reason standard CED is partially pseudo scientific all by itself, give me a break).