>>11381588Twistor theory is chapter 33, what I'm talking about starts around Chapter 30 `Gravity’s role in quantum state reduction`, what he wrote on foundation of QM is kinda both outdated and unorthodox but it seems they can easily fly off the radar of people who don't understand QM at this level and use this book as entry point to learn physics (lol)
A few quotes from the book:
>30.1 Is today’s quantum theory here to stay?>...the laws of present-day quantum mechanics are in need of a fundamental (though presumably subtle) change.>These reasons come from within accepted physical principles and from observed facts about the universe.If there were observed facts that would prompt a change in the foundation of QM, that would be a huge breakthrough. In fact he next tell you QM is 100% experiment supported, and the problem is that it's too young
>Quantum mechanics, despite its extraordinary exception-free experimental support and strikingly confirmed predictions, is a comparatively young subject, being only about three-quarters of a century old>I find it remarkable how few of today’s quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject.By observed facts he means the unresolved issue about time asymmetry in fundamental laws. Most physicists (except for Penrose) agree that the elementary dynamical laws of the Universe are CPT-symmetric or very close to T-symmetric laws, so they can't explain the asymmetry from the thermodynamic point of view. However Penrose would take this as evidence that arrow of time is a consequence of gravity so he can insert gravity in state reduction lmao
>Is it so unreasonable to believe that this linearity might be an approximation to some more precise (but subtle) non-linearitynon linear QM and the idea that QM is approximation for some more accurate description was pretty much demolished by a simple deformation argument
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6917 
