Throughout history, many things have been said about time. Newton claimed that time is absolute and unchanging; later, Einstein spoke of time as relative. But the theory I will present now introduces something different. There is no "objective time"; every frame of reference has its own experience of time. What we call time is a unit of measurement we use for the different movements of atoms.
Now pause and think: can you see any difference between restoring the positions and velocities of all atoms in the universe to how they were 10 years ago and actually traveling 10 years back in time? You cannot, because time is nothing but the movements of atoms. Where there is no movement, time stops.
My theory does not aim to create new physical laws but rather answers the unanswered "Why?" questions in current physics understanding.
Changes occur in the internal processes of accelerating atoms. The mechanism works as follows:
This mechanism is not unique to my theory — it is already accepted in physics. I am simply saying that adding an external concept of time here is unnecessary. These mechanisms already explain why accelerating objects slow down.
This is not very different from what happens with acceleration. Both lead to atoms expending extra energy. We know this from the equivalence principle: a person in a closed environment cannot distinguish between gravity and acceleration. An object in a gravitational field may appear stationary, but its atoms are constantly forced to resist gravitational pull. They pay the price by slowing down. The stronger the gravity, the slower time passes. This is why hours spent near a black hole correspond to years on Earth.
"Photons are massless yet they deflect in gravity — doesn't this prove spacetime geometry?" one might ask. No, it does not. If such geometry were required, photons would not deflect during acceleration — only during gravity. Light may be massless, but it carries momentum. The mechanism works through energy and momentum, not geometry.
According to the currently accepted theory about the end of the universe, entropy will eventually reach its maximum level and the universe will become completely motionless and homogeneous. While it is said that "time becomes meaningless" at heat death, since no changes occur, time actually stops — meaninglessness does not occur. Saying "time becomes meaningless" at heat death is like saying "A stopped car is meaningless to move."
Because it is generally random and uniform, so very little time change occurs (though a tiny amount does). Meaningful directional movement is required for time change.
For something to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. I am not entirely sure whether my theory is fully falsifiable. Perhaps if the internal flow rate of accelerating atoms remained unchanged while time still slowed, that would falsify it. Or if evidence emerged for time travel derived from exceeding the speed of light (such as tachyons) — for which there is currently no concrete evidence, only theory — it could weaken my theory. But consider: is general relativity any different in this regard? In terms of falsifiability, my theory and general relativity are nearly on equal footing. However, my theory does not require an independent concept of time. It contains fewer unproven assumptions.
According to this principle, when two theories explain the same thing, the one with fewer assumptions should be preferred.
General relativity assumes: an independent time dimension and spacetime geometry. On top of that, it mathematically opens the door to tachyons and faster-than-light time travel — neither of which has any concrete evidence.
My theory assumes: no independent concept of time is required. Matter and motion exist; as long as there is motion, time exists. What happens inside atoms is enough to explain phenomena like acceleration and gravity.
In terms of calculation, it is no different from general relativity. But it treats independent time and geometry as unnecessary, explaining things through information change and atomic motion instead. While general relativity answers "How?" questions, this theory answers "Why?" questions. It also rejects unproven constructs like tachyons and faster-than-light time travel. In short, it explains more with less.
I believe the theory's greatest practical value lies in the realm of consciousness. The subjective experience of time in consciousness is not an illusion — time genuinely changes subjectively. If perceived time in consciousness can be changed or manipulated:
And perhaps much more...
Have you ever heard that time seems to pass faster as you age? The first reason is that as one ages, life follows the same routines and becomes monotonous. The brain processes the same information daily, so meaningful differences disappear, and time seems to fly. Another reason is that as people age, they are exposed to less new information. Children are usually in developmental stages and constantly in learning mode. Think of it like FPS (frames per second): a 15 FPS video appears faster, while a 60 FPS video lasts longer. The more information, the greater the subjective time.
Because they perceive more details, process more, and are exposed to more information. Studies show that individuals with high IQ tend to estimate durations about 15–20% longer than those with average intelligence. So, a one-minute period might feel like 50 seconds to one person but 70 seconds to another.
Similarly, people involved in fatal accidents say they experience the moment in "slow motion." This is not just a feeling; it results from the brain processing 2–3 times more information per second than normal. Experiences break down into frames, and time expands.
"Saying time doesn't exist contradicts measurements."
What is being measured is the internal processes of atoms — not an independent external time.
"In free fall, acceleration is zero, yet time still changes."
In free fall, the object is accelerating — the mechanism is triggered.
"Everything slows at the same rate — your theory predicts different rates."
The load comes from outside and affects all atoms equally, just as gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate.
"The nose and tail of a rocket carry the same load but experience different time."
They don't. The tail experiences more acceleration, the nose less.
"Lorentz contraction is a result, not a cause."
Which direction is more fundamental has not been proven. Electromagnetic balance disruption provides a concrete mechanism.
"There's no formula, no numbers."
There doesn't need to be — general relativity already works perfectly for calculations. My theory answers the "why" question; relativity's mathematics can be used for the calculations.
"Random motion also causes time change."
The small v² effect is real but the net effect is nearly zero. The arrow of entropy is a separate question — it doesn't conflict with my theory.
"Occam's Razor favors general relativity."
General relativity adds an independent time, spacetime geometry, and tachyons. My theory requires none of these.
"Spacetime geometry is a more fundamental explanation."
Why it curves is still unknown. Renaming an observation is not an explanation.
"The mechanism of the equivalence principle is already known."
It is not. General relativity takes it as a foundational assumption. My theory provides a mechanism.
This theory is not claimed to be absolutely true, but is considered largely plausible based on current reasoning. Errors may exist, and the perspective may evolve over time.