Yep, my paper is "very radical" precisely because it's not radical at all.😁 What I'm arguing is that special relativity doesn't contradict quantum indeterminism, it contradicts only standard QM. But that's how it has to be, because standard QM is a theory based on classical relativity and absolute space and time. So, some smart people like Dirac, Feynman ... and not to mention others, realized that quantum indeterminism should be combined with special relativity to obtain a very beautiful and fundamental theory, which is also in agreement with experimental data to more than 10 decimal places. If that is true, then why go back to non-relativistic QM and look for a new interpretation for it, when it is just a useful approximation of QFT for velocities much less than the speed of light?!

Well, the problem is precisely that the wavefunction evolves deterministically, while that same wavefunction is actually the source of indeterminism. That is why two particles must instantly correlate spins or other properties if they share the same wavefunction, that is, when they are entangled. The only way to avoid instantaneous correlation is to say that each of the particles is in a predetermined state, that is, in a precisely determined state up to the moment of measurement, but we cannot know that state. However, this is not what quantum mechanics claims, and Bell's inequality showed that in that case the particles could not exhibit the kind of correlation that they do in experiments. This is why experiments with entangled particles are usually called experiments that prove the violation of Bell's inequality, which is based on the assumption of local hidden variables. However, in my opinion, what these experiments actually prove is that standard QM is inconsistent with special relativity, which we could have said even without these experiments.😂 Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's QM are theories formulated within the framework of classical Galilean relativity and absolute space and time. There is no place in standard QM for Einstein's speed limit (c). Or, as I wrote in the conclusion of my paper, all the criticisms leveled at QM for superluminal action "are like fines issued for speeding on a road where Einstein’s speed limit (c) was never posted." In the next post you can find a link to a preprint of my work on Zenodo, so you can read it there if you're interested.