I only gave you referenced because you, in an attempt to refute my original reply to your nonsense, you asked me to supply references.
I only joined this discussion because quantum foundations is my area of expertise and I am inundated with various bogus claims about quantum mechanics all of the time, which is bad enough. But I'm used to that, and if people want me to explain more I'm always happy to (if not, ok). In this case, however, I'd had enough of BOTH the sheer volume of unsubstantiated nonsense you've posted from a position of self-proclaimed authority (supported by references to wikipedia, blogs, etc., instead of scientific literature) but no substance AND because these false claims have been accompanied with insultingly dismissive rhetoric:
Yet you haven't demonstrated you are at all familiar with QM specifically or quantum theory more generally, still less the kind of theoretical physics required to substantiate claims about quantum cosmologies, the big bang from a quantum perspective, quantized space(time), quantum time, etc.
So I'll ask again:
You've mentioned, repeatedly, what quantum mechanics has objectively shown in relation to the nature of space and time, such as here:
This is nonsense. It fails utterly to describe what cyclotrons are actually capable of, is incompatible with QM, and is unsupported by all testable formulations of any quantum theory that we hope to have (but currently do not) of the quantum nature of space and time at the scales where we might hope to detect evidence for or against discrete space(time). Your references to support it range from outright stating that your claims are unverified, even widely rejected, to simply describing them in terms of a "proposed" explanation that is completely untested.
I went into details in my first reply on the problems with your ignorance of QM. You ignored them all and ask for references. When I give these, you ignore them too.
You are the one claiming that you understand QM and telling others that they don't understand it, asking for references and telling me and others that we don't understand QM but you do. Ok, so show it.
What are the equations of the theory you describe? Is this theory of yours manifestly covariant? How does the use of cyclotrons support the existence of this "quanta scale" that you describe as not being continuous or having 3 spatial dimensions nor a continuous time dimension when even the LHC (probing at much, much, higher energy scales) has found no evidence for discrete spacetime and the standard model of particle physics as well as the standard model of cosmology (and all empirical tests) continued to support the existing quantum theories, all of which rely on continuous time (relativistic QFT requires spacetime, obviously, but it is built by demoting the spatial operators of QM to the role of a continuous fields in continuous spacetime that the newly minted operators of QFT, renamed "particles", act on locally).
It's true, the references I supplied deal with actual physics, not nonsense statements about "a dimensional world" (????) with "a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe". This is gibberish, not QM or quantum theory or physics. However, whenever you start thinking about this boundless quanta level scale you are so keen on, try reading some of your own sources more carefully:
"the No-Boundary Proposal is not generally accepted"
From your source:
The Quantum Origins of Our Universe
If you would like to deal with actual science and actual physics, you have to be prepared for more than sensationalist bunk. For example:
"Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time.
Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.