I was wondering whether the notion we have of Mr. Big Bang is erroneous. First I started to think that Einstein says where gravitation gets higher time gets slower. So in the beginning of the universe time must have been standing almost still. Then it started to move very very slowly, ever accelerating.

It also came to my mind that in the beginning there must have been only one thing, containing all the energy we have now. (If assuming the law of conservation of energy is appliable until then.)

Since there was only one thing you can't say anything about it since no measuring comparison available. You can't also say how long it existed until the first event happened.

That first event most likely was that one thing splitting into two. You can't also say how long it took until the second event happened since there was no comparison.

You can't also measure how far apart two things are or whether they are moving closer or further apart. You would be able only to compare intrinsic properties of these two things, not of their relation, but maybe such properties didn't exist. (Even a mass difference won't be noticeable since the attraction between them is the same measured from either side.) (And with the size you have the problem who is the observer for he can't be outside those two, and either of them can't observe their own size.)

But when the third thing happened (maybe one of these two splitting again) you can say lots more. You can compare mass relations, distance relations, measure movements, compare sizes, etc.

(Reminds me on the Tao Te King: One made two, two made three, and three made the ten thousand things.)

(Just found out that in the beginning space had zero dimensions, when there were two things it had one dimension, but when there were three things there were three (!) dimensions since you finally could compare sizes.)

I wanted to start this discussion because I have the intuition that timequants probably are the distances from the last quantum event anywhere in the universe to the next one (non-local information distribution assumed).

So, the first timequant happened between split 1 and split 2, the next between split 2 and split 3, and so on. (Later they should also happen with fusions.) You can't say how long any timequant is because there's nothing for measuring it. It has in(de)finite duration. Nowadays they appear to be quite small.

For a consistent picture you also need the uncertainty principle for allowing not to be able to position events exactly. Since it's absurd that space also should be quantized for it can't be made out of cubes since then the movements in certain directions would be faster than in others. (Since they would be jumps from one cube to the next.)

I rather think space is like a fractal, with infinitely small structures containing the whole universe manifold, but that'll be another discussion.

(Want to add that at reading this again it came to my mind that inside the timequant of only three things existing they could move relatively to each other, any track and length, observable in a certain way, but not measurable since no time measurement is possible. So they would "jump" from one position at event n to another position at event n+1. Maybe this could throw some light somewhere else.)