Creation of Time: Understanding the Universe Through Perspective

[Katrex]

So I understand there's rarely such a thing as an original idea. Perhaps this is already out there if so let me know.

From what I understand, one interesting way to look at the speed of light, is that it is the speed that everything travels at except when it has mass to slow it down. It is the base speed of the universe.

From the perspective of something traveling the speed of light it would be everywhere at the same time. In a sense mass creates time

Because we are creatures of mass, we see it the other way round, where the universe is being weird when objects approaches the speed of light, rather thus us being the weird thing experiencing this thing called time.

Whats the point in saying this? Where does it get us?

What would the universe be like if everything consisted off massless particles. Wouldn't every single particle be in every location at the same "time" so to speak. There would be no such thing as time, but if you were able to have the perspective of one of those particles, couldn't you say, every location in space has exactly every particle in it at the same "time", and that every single particle is in every single location.

Here's the question. Isn't that the same as what the very start of the universe was, all of everything in one point without the existence of time?

And could it be that the introduction of mass created the bigbang? That in a sense the big bang was just a consequence, the what would have to happen once time was created.

Has this been discussed mentioned thought about before, if so what's the consensus, if not what's your opinion on this perspective.

Note: I understand this could be seen as a personal theory... hypothesis, however all premises are grounded in real physics, this is more a matter of perspective, altering our perceptions to help us understand the universe.

 

[rootone]

There certainly are original ideas, but this forum is pretty much defined to be place where people discuss what is known.
I'm not a mod or anything, but threads tend to get locked when they go into 'could it be ...?.'

There is always the Lounge section though ...

 

[Katrex]

Yeah was worried about that, we'll see. Its based on real physics, so let's see what a mod thinks.

 

[PeterDonis]

From the perspective of something traveling the speed of light it would be everywhere at the same time.

No, this is not correct. What is correct is that the concept of "experienced time" does not make sense for an object traveling at the speed of light. But the worldlines of such objects still consist of distinct points, at which distinct events can happen; they are certainly not "everywhere at once".

What would the universe be like if everything consisted off massless particles.

Actually, according to the standard model of particle physics, at sufficiently high energy (such as in the very early universe, before the electroweak phase transition), all of the fundamental particles are massless. They gain mass through their interaction with the Higgs field after the electroweak symmetry is spotaneously broken. However, that doesn't change what I said above about your understanding of massless objects being incorrect.

I understand this could be seen as a personal theory

It is, but the real problem is that it's based on an incorrect understanding of what's already known. See above.

Based on the above, this thread is closed.