Resolution of the Universe

[Tglad]

how many plancklenghts (aka voxels) are packed into the expanding sphere of the observable universe

quantum theory does not mean that the universe is voxels, or even that it is discrete. The only discrete part of quantum theory is the energy levels of orbiting electrons. But the physics of the underlying virtual particles is entirely continuous and deterministic.

AH, I hope you don't mind me having a go at answering your questions, I'm not a physicist though, these are my opinions:

"What IS time?"
It is a quantity we can macroscopically define as an axis on a manifold (3D space + 1D of time, but curved).

"HOW does it "occur"?"
It doesn't occur... but universes that have time seem to be the only ones where planets and animals can form in order to ask that question.
"Why do we experience it the way we do?"
hard to answer about anything, but I think the reason we have memories of the past and predictions of the future (rather than the other way around) is that the future is higher entropy, so takes HUGELY more storage, but the past is lower entropy and can be stored in the present.
"WHY is it one-way?"
If there was no entropy gradient the world would be hugely disordered (perhaps a big fuzzy cloud) and no-one around. We're only here because the entropy is rapidly increasing, and it only appears one way because our memories are on the low entropy side. If the entropy gradient were the other way then our memories would be on the other side, and we would still feel that time is one way.

"WHY is "c" the upper speed limit?"
It isn't really a limit, you can always go faster and faster from your perspective. But others will not see you go past faster than c.
Its value could either be infinity (which causes problems with causation), or finite. If it is finite, it has to have some value in some units, and we're going to call it c.

"Why does time "dilate" for something more and more as it accelerates through space?"
Either time^2 is positive, in which case time is like a space dimension and we would not call it time, or time^2 is 0 (independent of space) and we live in the Newtonian universe but the infinite speed of light has problems with causation (circular dependencies), or time^2 is negative and we live in Einstein's universe, and we get time dilation. For more info you could look up Lorentz boosts.

"WHY is it that the light from a moving light source will be seen as "c" from both the light-source as it moves AND from a stationary observer?"
Because the light source is time dilated, so, while the relative distance travelled by the light is less, the time that has passed appears to be (and is) less for the person at the light source, so the ratio of the two is the same velocity.

"WHY is a Planck length the lowest limit of space/time resolution in which information exists?"
This is due to the uncertainty principle... it seems to me that there is still a lot of behaviour going on below this length (wave behaviour of virtual particles) but that seems to be the limit of our ability to resolve distances.

"Why did Einstein say there is no "universal frame of reference"?"
In Newton's universe, knowing that the speed of light is finite, one has to assume that the earth is roughly stationary as the speed of light is measured the same in all directions. So there must be a frame of reference (a coordinates) that is roughly fixed with the earth. This would be weird as if you were some another galaxy and shined a torch, the light would come out slower in one direction than another.
In Einstein's special relativity (1905), there is no fixed frame, objects going at any fixed velocity will observe light's speed to be equal in all directions. However, it assumes the acceleration of the frame is 0.
In Einstein's general relativity (1915?) he generalises the laws of physics to work the same on any frame of reference, including accelerating ones.

"Why does the total energy of a particle equal mass times the speed of light squared?"
don't know 

[anomalous howard]

Hi Tglad,

Thanks for the response.

The questions at the end of my post are handled in the model.  It's a way to begin a model and how its basic form produces results that agree with/confirm the math physics uses.

The thing about the math is it can't be truly substantiated as applicable to reality by using math...that would be tautological.

The model steps outside of math to provide confirmation of the math.

Really math heavy stuff like the battle over whether dark matter exists or not might be solved with a more meticulous treatment of the model.  If the model doesn't allow for dark matter, then the math involved that brings people to suppose that dark matter exists may be just a useless exercise.  That "dark matter math" might just arise out of an artifact created by treatment of The Universe as a contiguous, one-time iteration when it's actually discrete, sequential iterations.

[youhn]

If you take the 2nd Law to its logical conclusion, the end state of every wave form (ie everything) in the Universe will be to become entirely perfectly homogeneous. Which happens to be a state of affairs which is exactly the opposite of what it seems like entropy is doing in its drive toward more and more disorder.  The "disorder" during the process is the activity involved in seeking a "steady state".

This is a misinterpretation of the 2nd law, which actually is not really a law as for example the value of c, or e = mc^2. It's more of a statistical/average thing.
I would rather say the universe works as a structure-building machine. Starting with a compact singularity (? which we call it, but don't know for real) of energy. Only when time start to progress (or perhaps time is an artifact, the result of things moving/iterating/flowing) this energy bifurcates into particles, which first form simple atoms. Some bits of energy/matter were closes together, so started to warp space a bit more. As a result, planets and stars were formed. Some iterations later, stars exploded and brought new more complex atoms in the game. Eventually these atoms, at least on earth, have formed into even more complex structures, like RNA, DNA. Then from single cells to multi-cell structures, which began to shape their environments in increasingly more effective ways. Some even think about blowing up threatening astroids, taking over planets or even tapping the complete energy from a star. Seem that the universe wants to interact with itself. Could we call it (the universe) a closed system...? (then the 2nd law would apply).

[anomalous howard]

So, if I understand what you're getting at, as a "structure building machine" existing as a closed system (finite, as per assumption 1 of the model), the model might proceed in a way that the first "iteration" of Universe is just a single event..."bifurcation of energy" or "step 1".  The Universe then refolds from there and retains the info of that event and repeats it in the second iteration. As the second iteration unfolds this bifurcation of energy progresses one step...and the Universe refolds again retaining the information of both steps so the "build" represented by iteration 2 is repeated in iteration 3 whereupon another quanta of "building" occurs....
Until after enough iterations, each adding another quanta of "progressive building", the Universe arrives at buildx where/when a particle or particles exist.  And from there, at a particular buildxxxxx..., conditions arise that allow for our interface to be established and here we are.

That could very well be the case and I see no reason why the model could not function this way.

I suppose that opens up the question of whether or not "we" are interfaced at the leading edge of the "building" or, since it's reiterative, are we somewhere/when in the middle of the building and the leading edge is now at some point far into what we call "the future"?

Thanks for the input youhn.

As an addendum I have to add that since the model cannot "begin" at or "during" iteration 1 (iteration alpha) or at or "during" the point singularity, it has to start at iteration omega so every subsequent iteration would proceed through the entire summation of iterations.  Exploration into the point singularity, iteration alpha and all iterations that "build" from alpha to reach omega will have to wait for the computer.  Could be a "long" wait.

[anomalous howard]

quantum theory does not mean that the universe is voxels, or even that it is discrete. The only discrete part of quantum theory is the energy levels of orbiting electrons. But the physics of the underlying virtual particles is entirely continuous and deterministic.

AH, I hope you don't mind me having a go at answering your questions, I'm not a physicist though, these are my opinions:

"What IS time?"
It is a quantity we can macroscopically define as an axis on a manifold (3D space + 1D of time, but curved).

"HOW does it "occur"?"
It doesn't occur... but universes that have time seem to be the only ones where planets and animals can form in order to ask that question.
"Why do we experience it the way we do?"
hard to answer about anything, but I think the reason we have memories of the past and predictions of the future (rather than the other way around) is that the future is higher entropy, so takes HUGELY more storage, but the past is lower entropy and can be stored in the present.
"WHY is it one-way?"
If there was no entropy gradient the world would be hugely disordered (perhaps a big fuzzy cloud) and no-one around. We're only here because the entropy is rapidly increasing, and it only appears one way because our memories are on the low entropy side. If the entropy gradient were the other way then our memories would be on the other side, and we would still feel that time is one way.

"WHY is "c" the upper speed limit?"
It isn't really a limit, you can always go faster and faster from your perspective. But others will not see you go past faster than c.
Its value could either be infinity (which causes problems with causation), or finite. If it is finite, it has to have some value in some units, and we're going to call it c.

"Why does time "dilate" for something more and more as it accelerates through space?"
Either time^2 is positive, in which case time is like a space dimension and we would not call it time, or time^2 is 0 (independent of space) and we live in the Newtonian universe but the infinite speed of light has problems with causation (circular dependencies), or time^2 is negative and we live in Einstein's universe, and we get time dilation. For more info you could look up Lorentz boosts.

"WHY is it that the light from a moving light source will be seen as "c" from both the light-source as it moves AND from a stationary observer?"
Because the light source is time dilated, so, while the relative distance travelled by the light is less, the time that has passed appears to be (and is) less for the person at the light source, so the ratio of the two is the same velocity.

"WHY is a Planck length the lowest limit of space/time resolution in which information exists?"
This is due to the uncertainty principle... it seems to me that there is still a lot of behaviour going on below this length (wave behaviour of virtual particles) but that seems to be the limit of our ability to resolve distances.

"Why did Einstein say there is no "universal frame of reference"?"
In Newton's universe, knowing that the speed of light is finite, one has to assume that the earth is roughly stationary as the speed of light is measured the same in all directions. So there must be a frame of reference (a coordinates) that is roughly fixed with the earth. This would be weird as if you were some another galaxy and shined a torch, the light would come out slower in one direction than another.
In Einstein's special relativity (1905), there is no fixed frame, objects going at any fixed velocity will observe light's speed to be equal in all directions. However, it assumes the acceleration of the frame is 0.
In Einstein's general relativity (1915?) he generalises the laws of physics to work the same on any frame of reference, including accelerating ones.

"Why does the total energy of a particle equal mass times the speed of light squared?"
don't know  

Hi again Tglad,

The fact that energy levels are quantized is actually "reflected" throughout the system, producing such things as spin quantum, time quantum and "distance" quantum.  The quantum nature of these things at the basis of existence you might call fractalization of quanta.
In the same way that "spin" is fractal...from galaxy clusters down into galaxies into star clusters into solar systems...etc down to quarks and such.

Here's an example discussing spin quantum...
(note the references to Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and their discussion of the lattice (which I termed "substrate" in my model) that is a necessary component of the environment produced for the described experiment.


From:Bose–Einstein condensation of spin wave quanta at room temperature:

"The unique properties of spin waves result from interactions acting between
magnetic moments. For relatively small wavevectors (k < 104 cm−1), spin wave
dynamics is almost entirely determined by magnetic dipole interactions. Owing
to the anisotropic nature of the magnetic dipole interactions, the frequency of
a spin wave depends not only on the absolute value of its wavevector, but also
on the orientation of the wavevector relative to the static magnetization. For
large wavevectors (k > 106 cm−1), the exchange interaction dominates. In the
wavevector interval 104 cm−1 < k < 106 cm−1, neither of these interactions can be
neglected. The corresponding excitations should be treated as dipole-exchange
spin waves.
From the quantum-mechanical point of view, the spin wave energy should
be quantized. The quantitative theory of quantized spin waves, or magnons,
was developed by Holstein & Primakoff [2] and Dyson [3]. If one considers the
completely magnetized state at zero temperature as the vacuum state of the
ferromagnet, the low-temperature state can be treated as a gas of magnons.
The magnons behave as weakly interacting quasi-particles obeying Bose–Einstein
statistics. Magnons at thermal equilibrium do not usually show coherence effects.
In fact, they form a gas of excitations, nicely described within the quantum
formalism of population numbers.
One of the most striking quantum phenomena possible in a gas of bosons is
Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) [4]. It represents a formation of a collective
macroscopic quantum state of bosons. As the temperature of the boson gas T
decreases at a given density N, or, vice versa, the density increases at a given
temperature, and the chemical potential m, describing the gas, increases as well.
On the other hand, m cannot be larger than the minimum energy of the bosons
3min. The condition m(N, T) = 3min defines a critical density Nc(T). If the density
of the particles in the system is larger than Nc, BEC takes place and the gas
is spontaneously divided into two fractions: (i) particles with the density Nc are
distributed over the entire spectrum of possible boson states and (ii) a coherent
ensemble of particles is accumulated in the lowest state with 3 = 3min.
Several groups have reported observations of field-induced BEC of magnetic
excitations in different quantum low-dimensional magnets (for a review, see [5]).
In these materials, a phase transition occurs if the applied magnetic field is
strong enough to overcome the antiferromagnetic exchange coupling. Such a
transition is accompanied by a magnetic mode softening (3min → 0). It can be
treated as BEC in an ensemble of magnetic bosons. If, however, a gap exists in
the magnon spectrum (3min > 0), there is no possibility of observing BEC at true
thermodynamic equilibrium because m < 3min. In fact, if the magnetic subsystem
stays in equilibrium with the thermal bath (lattice), its state is characterized by
the minimum of the free energy, F (e.g. [6]). On the other hand, the chemical
potential is the derivative of the free energy with respect to the number of
particles. In a system of quasi-particles whose number can vary, F can be
minimized through creation and annihilation of particles. In other words, quasiparticles
will be created or annihilated owing to energy exchange with the lattice
until their number corresponds to the condition of the minimum F (this is the
same as m = 0). Thus, to observe BEC in a gas of quasi-particles with 3min > 0,
one should drive the system away from the true equilibrium using an external
source. In the case of polaritons, one uses a laser [7], in the case of magnons,
parametric microwave pumping is a perfect tool for this purpose."

Bose–Einstein condensation of spin wave quanta at room temperature
BY O. DZYAPKO1, V. E. DEMIDOV1, G. A. MELKOV2
AND S. O. DEMOKRITOV1,*
1Institute for Applied Physics, University of Münster,
48149 Münster, Germany
2Department of Radiophysics, National Taras Schevchenko University of Kiev,
Kiev, Ukraine

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/369/1951/3575.full.pdf

I just ran across this so I apologize in the delay in bringing it to your attention to further the discussion here on "quanta"

[Tglad]

quantised energy (only in bounded states, such as orbiting a nucleus) includes angular kinetic energy. But there is no quantisation of time or space... Having a minimal (approximate) distance at which you can tell things apart (plank length) is not the same as a quantisation of space. One can also count the number of bits of information that a surface of a given area is capable of storing... but that's not the same as space being quantised. (At least, from what I have read, e.g. last chapters of the Road to Reality by Roger Penrose).

Several researchers have played with models that quantise space but none have been successful, the biggest problem is that you generally lose Lorentz invariance. i.e. the quantisation would look different under a Lorentz boost, and the important principle of no universal coordinate frame is lost.
Interestingly there are such concepts as space-time crystals (which Josleys has worked on), where quantised lattices are invariant under certain boosts, but it doesn't apply to arbitrary boosts.

[kram1032]

The universe certainly isn't, like, a voxel-grid. Things don't "jump" between two nearest (planck-distance separated) locations to neighbouring times (planck-time separated) if you look that closely. The transition is smooth and continuous. You just can't pinpoint where exactly a given particle is.
Discretization effects only occur if you add boundary conditions.

[anomalous howard]

quantised energy (only in bounded states, such as orbiting a nucleus) includes angular kinetic energy. But there is no quantisation of time or space... Having a minimal (approximate) distance at which you can tell things apart (plank length) is not the same as a quantisation of space. One can also count the number of bits of information that a surface of a given area is capable of storing... but that's not the same as space being quantised. (At least, from what I have read, e.g. last chapters of the Road to Reality by Roger Penrose).

Several researchers have played with models that quantise space but none have been successful, the biggest problem is that you generally lose Lorentz invariance. i.e. the quantisation would look different under a Lorentz boost, and the important principle of no universal coordinate frame is lost.
Interestingly there are such concepts as space-time crystals (which Josleys has worked on), where quantised lattices are invariant under certain boosts, but it doesn't apply to arbitrary boosts.

The problem there is that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

William G. Tifft, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona:
"There is no conclusive evidence that time is quantized, but certain theoretical studies suggest that in order to unify general relativity (gravitation) with the theories of quantum physics that describe fundamental particles and forces, it may be necessary to quantize space and perhaps time as well. Time is always a 1-dimensional quantity in this case.

My own work, which combines new theoretical ideas with observations of the properties of galaxies, fundamental particles and forces, does suggest that in a certain sense time may indeed be quantized. To see this we need some background information; in this scenario, time is no longer 1-dimensional!
"My colleagues and I have observed that the 'redshifts' of galaxies seems to be quantized. The redshift is the apparent shift in the frequency of light from distant galaxies. This shift is toward the red end of the spectrum and its magnitude increases with distance. If redshifts were due to a simple stretching of light caused by the expansion of the universe, as is generally assumed, then they should take on a smooth distribution of values. In fact, I find that redshifts appear to take on discrete values, something that is not possible if they are simply due to the cosmic expansion. This finding suggests that there is something very fundamental about space and time which we have not yet discovered.
"The redshifted light we observe is consists of photons, discrete 'particles' of light energy. The energy of a photon is the product of a physical constant (Planck's constant) times the frequency of the light. Frequency is defined as the reciprocal of time, so if only certain redshifts are possible, then only certain energies are present, and hence only certain frequencies (or, equivalently, time intervals) are allowed. To the extent that redshifts of galaxies relate to the structure of time, then, it suggests an underlying quantization.
"In our newest theoretical models we have learned to predict the energies involved. We find that the times involved are always certain special multiples of the 'Planck time,' the shortest time interval consistent with modern physical theories. The model we are working with not only predicts redshifts but also permits a calculation of the mass energies of the basic fundamental particles and of the properties of the fundamental forces. The model implies that time, like space seems to be three dimensional.
We now think that three-dimensional time may be the fundamental matrix of the universe. In this view, fundamental particles and objects--up to the scale of whole galaxies--can be represented as discrete quantized structures of 3-d time embedded within a general matrix of 3-D time. The structures seem to be spraying radially outward from an origin point (time = 0): a big-bang in 3-D time. Any given chunk, say our galaxy, is flowing outward in 3-D time along its own 1-dimensional track, a 1-D timeline. Inside our (quantized) chunk we sense only ordinary 3-D space, and the single 1-dimension time flow of our chunk of 3-D time.


"Now we can finally attempt to answer the original question, whether time is quantized. The flow of time that you sense corresponds to the flow of our chunk of 3-D time through the general matrix of 3-D time. This time is probably not quantized. Both ordinary space and ordinary 'operational' time can be continuous. On the other hand, the structure of the time intervals (frequencies and energies) that make up the 3-D chunks of time which we call galaxies (or fundamental particles) does appear to be quantized in units connected to the Planck scale. In the 3-D time model, space is a local entity. Galaxies are separated in 3-D time, which we have misinterpreted as separation in space."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/

So, if the above is correct, the other two dimensions of time occur in a way not experienced by us since we experience it across iterations.  At least one of the other two dimensions of time may occur within any individual iteration.  I mistakenly thought that there could be no time within an iteration but the above seems to point toward each iteration possessing its own dimension of time.

So the unfolding of an iteration may produce the 2nd dimension of time within each single iteration and it may be that the refolding of an iteration produces the 3rd dimension of time.  

Continuing to treat The Universe as a single iteration (instead of repetitions of folding/unfolding) will produce artifacts that can only be resolved with such things as "special cases" and the like.
They seem to be getting very close to my model in that last bolded statement.

This is getting to be a very interesting discussion.  Thanks for the input once again.

[anomalous howard]

The universe certainly isn't, like, a voxel-grid. Things don't "jump" between two nearest (planck-distance separated) locations to neighbouring times (planck-time separated) if you look that closely. The transition is smooth and continuous. You just can't pinpoint where exactly a given particle is.
Discretization effects only occur if you add boundary conditions.

Hi kram, thanks for the response.
I hope my post above answers some of your concerns.

I think part of the problem in the communication here might come from a difficulty with stepping outside the current paradigm in order to explore another.

If you look closely at my model I make no mention of a "voxel grid" nor do I imply one.  And I certainly don't suggest that "things jump between two nearest (planck-distance separated) locations to neighbouring times (planck-time separated)"  
If The Universe were a 1 iteration contiguous structure I suppose something like a "voxel grid" would be necessary.  But since I have a repeating iteration in the model it is each separate iteration that is unfolding as a "quantized" universe (lower case "u").  It would be the sum of each unfolding that is "The Universe" which, due to the nature of the interface roughly described in my model, produces observations that seem to rule out quantized time and space.  We are unable to see separate iterations...we basically skim along as the future proceeds toward us...one "quanta" of Universe at a time while we mistakenly believe each individual "quanta" is the whole.

Looking at it as if there was one contiguous iteration plodding along across billions of years in a continuous flow is similar to looking at any single frame of a movie reel and saying that the contents of that single frame is "The Movie" and then trying to mathematically model The Movie on a single static frame.

[Tglad]

Well I don't want to argue because 1. I'm not a physicist, and 2. neither are you. So I suspect we'd both be speaking outside our knowledge area.
But I will repeat what I have read from Penrose (who is a respected physicist), which is that several people have attempted to quantise time and/or space but get stuck maintaining Lorentz invariance. The evidence of lack is that quantisations are not Lorentz invariant and Lorentz invariance is core in there being no universal or privileged inertial coordinate frame.

and from Wikipedia:

Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field.

I won't give any more responses as it is beyond my expertise, but good luck with the idea, you could try discussing it on physicsforums.com.

[anomalous howard]

Well I don't want to argue because 1. I'm not a physicist, and 2. neither are you. So I suspect we'd both be speaking outside our knowledge area.
But I will repeat what I have read from Penrose (who is a respected physicist), which is that several people have attempted to quantise time and/or space but get stuck maintaining Lorentz invariance. The evidence of lack is that quantisations are Lorentz invariant and Lorentz invariance is core in there being no universal or privileged inertial coordinate frame.

and from Wikipedia:
I won't give any more responses as it is beyond my expertise, but good luck with the idea, you could try discussing it on physicsforums.com.

Yes, Lorentz holds in the observable universe (lower case u).  The observable universe, however, is the single frame of the movie.

The model I'm proposing has unobservable components due to the nature of the interface between observer and consciousness.

It's a tough leap to make but stepping outside a paradigm isn't always easy.

But thanks again.

[anomalous howard]

Well I don't want to argue because 1. I'm not a physicist, and 2. neither are you. So I suspect we'd both be speaking outside our knowledge area.
But I will repeat what I have read from Penrose (who is a respected physicist), which is that several people have attempted to quantise time and/or space but get stuck maintaining Lorentz invariance. The evidence of lack is that quantisations are Lorentz invariant and Lorentz invariance is core in there being no universal or privileged inertial coordinate frame.

and from Wikipedia:
I won't give any more responses as it is beyond my expertise, but good luck with the idea, you could try discussing it on physicsforums.com.

I would also like to note that, even though you make reference to a Wikipedia article, you omit the following, also from Wikipedia:

Based on observations of nearby galaxies, Tifft has put forward the idea that the redshifts of galaxies are quantized, or that they occur preferentially as multiples of a set number. These findings on redshift quantization were originally published in 1976 and 1977 in the Astrophysical Journal.[2][3][4] The ideas were controversial when originally proposed; the editors of the Astrophysical Journal included a note in one of the papers stating that they could neither find errors within the analysis nor endorse the analysis.[3] Subsequently Tifft and Cocke put forward a theory to try to explain the quantization. Tifft's results have been largely replicated by Croasdale[5] and later Napier and Guthrie.[6] Croasdale did a comprehensive analysis of the statistical significance and confirmed the special frame in which quantization is found to be the same over the whole sky. Since the initial publication of these results, Tifft’s findings have been used by others, such as Halton Arp, in making an alternative explanation to the Big Bang Theory, which states that galaxies are redshifted because the universe is expanding.[7][8] However, Tifft himself, when interviewed for the popular science magazine Discover in 1993, stated that he was not necessarily claiming that the universe was not expanding.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft

And from another paper:

"The existence of quantized red-shift as an observational fact is now well established."
https://books.google.com/books?id=92jxCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%22Tifft+and+Cocke%22&source=bl&ots=8ptHycEcPk&sig=RX2JjC8XFBg4eH4INsDZec4eMfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuov69iK3RAhWB5SYKHa1pCFIQ6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=%22quantized%20redshifts%22&f=false

The trail that your concerns has led to is very welcome.  I was not aware of these developments in theory when I first began conceptualizing this model at the end of last year.  Frankly, I don't even know what sparked my brain to begin this endeavor.  Maybe it was my decades-long passion for solving extremely difficult crossword puzzles.  A skill which requires one to consider clues without resort to any specific context but instead to consider all possible contexts nearly simultaneously then making sure that any possible answer "fits" by extrapolating all possible answers into the "build" of the puzzle before committing the pen.
I like to work in pen and I like error-free committal :-).
So far, thanks to this forum, I cannot say that I solved the "Universe" puzzle error free since my "pen" originally did not include the term "boson" and I may change the term "observer" to "end-user".  Also I have to put different dimensions of time into slots that I had originally filled with "no time".

I'm sorry that you may not respond again Tglad.  You have helped.  Thank you.

[youhn]

... Things don't "jump" between two nearest (planck-distance separated) locations to neighbouring times (planck-time separated) if you look that closely. The transition is smooth and continuous.

Do we actually KNOW this?! Can we look THAT closely ... ? I would leave this as a topic of discussion, but if you have proof/examples/observations otherwise, please share!

Discretization effects only occur if you add boundary conditions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Doesn't everything naturally have a boundary, and thus also boundary conditions? 

[knighty]

quantised energy (only in bounded states, such as orbiting a nucleus) includes angular kinetic energy. But there is no quantisation of time or space... Having a minimal (approximate) distance at which you can tell things apart (plank length) is not the same as a quantisation of space. One can also count the number of bits of information that a surface of a given area is capable of storing... but that's not the same as space being quantised. (At least, from what I have read, e.g. last chapters of the Road to Reality by Roger Penrose).

Several researchers have played with models that quantise space but none have been successful, the biggest problem is that you generally lose Lorentz invariance. i.e. the quantisation would look different under a Lorentz boost, and the important principle of no universal coordinate frame is lost.
Interestingly there are such concepts as space-time crystals (which Josleys has worked on), where quantised lattices are invariant under certain boosts, but it doesn't apply to arbitrary boosts.

I'm not a physicist either, so let's let them answer: Carlo Rovelli (also Peter Shor comments) here. 

[Chillheimer]

Welcome howard! Thanks for sharing your ideas - very interesting, we have a very similar approach, looking forward to more discussions and exchange with you.

there's so much text and so many points that deserve answers and more discussion, it's a bit overwhelming..
Before I write nothing, I'll just write a few thoughts and will probably leave out a lot.

Where do I start..

quantum theory does not mean that the universe is voxels, or even that it is discrete. The only discrete part of quantum theory is the energy levels of orbiting electrons. But the physics of the underlying virtual particles is entirely continuous and deterministic.

I don't claim that the universe actually IS discrete voxels. My calculation was a little fun-number-play, don't take my use of terms like voxels too serious.

But: I think it is discrete in relation to the observer. This seems to match with Howards idea of the interface/observer.
I'd like to use the Mandelbrot-Set as simple model to explain: You look at a rendered picture of a zoomed in part of the Mset. It has a fixed resolution like 1920*1080. With discrete pixels. But that is only the current snapshot at the current magnification. You can of course zoom in or out to reveal more or less details.
And so the image you look at is at the same time discrete and continuous. Always depending on the field of view of the observer.
Also, you do have an absolute limit in the mandelbrot set, like the planck units: When zoomed out so far that the area of the mset -2 to +1 is displayed as one single pixel. You have no more shapes or rules. No more working "physics" that make sense.



Regarding entropy:
I think an important point that is frequently left out with entropy is the following:
Evolution of technology has always been speeding up. We call it Moore's Law when it comes to computers. But I'm convinced that you can observe Moore's Law also in biological evolution and probably even until the BigBang.
I've posted this a few times, but pictures say more than a thousand words

Couple this with the concept of shapestacking in the mandelbrot-set and you get a whole new perspective on entropy and the power law.
It's about different levels of complexity. Each new Level of complexity has the lower levels below embedded into it, consists of them, but on the new level you start with a complexity of zero. "Relative" entropy is 'reset' to zero and starts rising from there.
Complex arrangements of elementary particles forming single atoms.
complex arrangements of atoms forming single molecules.
Complex arrangements of single molecules forming a single cell
Complex arrangements of single cells form complex organisms like humans.
Complex arrangements of single humans connecting  through the internet forming a new level of complexity, a global brain...

Entropy is relative!
It keeps rising, but starts all over on each level of complexity.
And this speeds exponentially.

And I don't mean complexity as in chaos. chaos is extremely complex. real complexity, with 'meaningful' information always is fractal.

Putting these observations together, I find it pointless to talk about that "endstate" of the universe, where everything theoretically smoothes out.
It's like Achilles and the tortoise. He'll never reach it.


@Tglad:
Please continue participating. If there is no interdisciplinary talk there is no evolution of ideas. No one can be a specialist in all areas.
Especially when it comes to a fractal worldview, you need to know a littlebit of everything, to put the whole image together.
I really miss appreciation of the polymath or rennaisance man in todays culture.
In the past I often didn't participate in discussions, in fear of looking like a fool to the specialists. But this is foolish in itself. How can we learn and grow that way?
Our society is obsessed with specialization.
And this has brought us lots of progress, no doubt.
But it also brings us into the danger of getting lost in the micro-view and missing the big picture.
We need to find a better balance.




So much for now, have to start working.. Sorry I haven't dived into more details of your ideas Howard. Another day..


edit:
on consciousness.
howard, I strongly recommend Peter Russel, "primacy of consciousness", check on youtube.
I share that view. Consciousness is in everything, the more complex and responsive to the surrounding the more conscious a being (or object).
I like to see it as "consciousness is measurement". Even a single elementary particle is conscious on the most basic level. when 2 elementary particles meet, they "measure" each others velocity, direction, energy... and this will result in a certain probabilty of consistent output.
if there is no interaction, it doesn't manifest/exist. not part of our universe, irrelevant.
double-slit, wave particle dualism, large fullerene molecules act as a wave - if not measured.
"the moon isn't there if no one is looking." true imho - but it measures itself, the particles of itself interact with themselves. so it's not necessary that there is a distant observer as the moon "observes" itself. or should i say measures itself, is conscious of itself..
sorry, had to get rid of this. though far too short, this could fill several evenings of realtime discussion..