For example Barbour, The End of Time.

They use this non-existence of a distinction between past/present/future as an argument or a starting point for their view. Sorry if my formulation is wacky, I know that.

What I mean by the time not existing is the notion that it might not be a fundamental building block of the universe that some theorists seem to accept. What I wanted to come into with my question is, that if we work the other way around, because relativity also speaks of the relativity of distance, and take into consideration that the time actually is fundamental and space is not, what arguments can we meet that would make this approach difficult?

Well, my whole question is about philosophy and interpretation, so it is just a handwavery too :) Talking about the universal structures is tricky and exactly this line of thought led me to this question about the timeless physics interpretation. In my view, what timeless physics interpretation is doing is something like fixing the spatial axis and considering only the rotation of the temporal axis in movement and deducing from this that the time does not exist. But that is forgetting the fact, that during movement the direction of spatial axis is different from the observer at rest, too.

No, I am certainly not implying or considering that the big bang started from a point. I am just saying that if we define some two points in early universe some distance apart and look at them now, they will be more distant than in the early universe thanks to the expansion. If we choose some time before or even during the inflatory period, the two points can drift apart further than what can be reachable by any sublight speed.

From my thesis supervisor. I am afraid to ask him silly questions...

A remark - what is a real spinor? Spinors are defined on $\mathbb{C}$ AFAIK, real spinor is just a two component vector, which carries less information than complex spinor?

but from the phenomenological point of view, yes, you should think of electricity as of flows and changes in electron fields

Well, electricity is beyond the scope of QFT's usefulness. With QFT, you want to describe simple interactions between small number of particles on extremely short scales(you could say interactions in just one point of space). Even those simple interactions are extremely difficult to calculate. With electricity you would need to account for the fields of the wire/conductor, the dielectric it is surrounded etc. You could do that, but it does not have any advantage compared to classical approach.

If you consider the excitation as an unit/quantum of energy, then yes, they exchange these excitations.

Well, in quantum mechanics in general "created" is a bad word, since you can not really distinguish between particles and you could say that a particle is "destroyed" and "created" every small time interval it lives. You can't really know if it is another created particle or the same particle. In field theory, my point was, that it also makes little sense to talk about creation because you are just changing some values of some field in some points of space. What makes sense to talk about is the energy flow.