This page attempts to explain the model of time, without math. Please refer to the paper, A Model of Time Based on the Expansion of Space, and the videos, Time Explained, Part 1, dealing with hyperverse time, and Time Explained, Part 2, on atomic time, for a more detailed discussion.
"What is Time" is maybe the most puzzling aspect of existence. Physics has not been able to explain time. The issue is so difficult that many physicists have resorted to saying time is an illusion. The most common general explanation for time appears to be based on attempting to connect entropy to time, because, as stated in Wikipedia :"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that requires a particular direction for time."
The expansion of space is one-way, and it too gives a "particular direction for time".
We claim here that time is real, and it is the consequence of the expansion of space. Let us shed light on what time is.
Two Steps to Time
We will argue that time consists of two parts. One part is directly related to the 2c radial expansion of space, and the other to the consequence of the spin of quanta and elementary particles.
The 2c radial expansion of space takes everything in the universe radially "fourthwards", into the fourth dimension, at twice the speed of light. We have a thickness in the fourth dimension, but it is very thin... less than the Planck length. So in one second of time, we have advanced many thicknesses into the fourth dimension. We are where we are at for a infinitesimal unit of time, about 6 times 10 to the minus 105 seconds. That is the length of the shortest unit of time, a moment. In one second of time, we have advanced fourhwards 600,000 kilometers, or a distance of one and a half times the distance to the moon. Expansion is one-way, into the fourth dimension, and that is the cosmological arrow of time.
When things in the past seem far away, they are! They are physically far away. And there is no going back, as the hyperverse surface has moved.
This is the time of our clocks. Atoms have spin. But atoms are composed of elementary particles, which have spin. And we will argue that elementary particles are themselves composed of the quanta of space, and the quanta have spin too. They all have the same energy, and spin rate. As an object is perceived to move, its rotational energy appears to be less, some of it manifested as kinetic energy, the energy of motion. This perceived reduction in the rotational kinetic energy makes it appear that the particle, or component quanta, have a lower spin rate. The lower spin rate means a lower frequency, and therefore a lower clock rate. This is the source of relativity.
We show in the quantum time paper that particles of matter absorb the quanta of space, and the time it takes for an elementary particle to absorb a quanta is on the order of 10^-23 seconds. This is the same time it takes for a frame advance. This absorption of a quantum of energy creates a change in the particle's mass and radius, and is presumably what 'ticks the clock'. See http://jimtassano.com/the-hyperverse-papers/quantum-time-2/
A Brief Description of Time:
Every point in space is on the surface of the expanding, hollow hyperverse. Every point on the surface, even though it is a 3D volume, is at the same distance from the center of the hyperverse. The hyperverse radius is growing at twice the speed of light, meaning every point in the universe is moving into the fourth dimension at twice the speed of light. In one second of time, we have traveled about 600,000 kilometers into the fourth dimension, equal to a one and a half times the distance to the moon. This gives us the one-way arrow of time, and explains our sense that events in the distant past are far away.
As discussed in the section on matter, we argue that matter is made of the vortices, or quanta, of space, and all the vortices have the same energy and spin rate. We see an object, moving relative to us, as having a slower spin rate: the faster the apparent velocity, the slower the apparent spin rate, or frequency. Thus our clock's frequency appears higher than that of a 'moving' clock. The ratio between the two gives relativity.
A simple way to view this idea is consider that there is a fixed vortex, and that you, the observer, use your space ship to fly out turn around, and come back, zooming along at different , but constant velocities, relative to the 'fixed' vortex. At no point was the spinning object altered; its energy cannot have changed. You, on the other hand, are traveling at different velocities. You know it, because you accelerated or decelerated to achieve whatever velocity you needed. Since you are traveling by at a constant velocity (relative to the vortex), you can claim it is the other object that is moving. But its energy has not changed. So any perceived change is just that, perceived, and not real. If it is traveling by you at a faster velocity than it was on your last flyby, you would see it has having greater kinetic energy. That energy could only have been at the expense of its total energy, lowering the amount of energy available for rotational kinetic energy. And that leads to a slower observed frequency of rotation.
Many in physics see time as being related to entropy. In the geometric mean paper, we find that the number of quanta in the universe is continually increasing. and thus there is a basis for developing entropy in light of an expanding hyperverse.
Time is a two part process, a combination of the 2c radial expansion, and the consequence of the nature of the quanta of space that comprise matter.
A Longer Description of Time:
Even this extended, no-math description of time will be lacking some of the more interesting aspects of the model of time, such as the energy of time, and centripetal velocity, but hopefully it will explain time in more detail, and make reading the time paper, or watching the associated videos, easier.
What is Time?
"What is time?" is one of the most common questions we have about existence. With the realization that every point in the universe is moving into the fourth dimension at twice the speed of light, we have an obvious suspect for explaining time. A model of time needs to account for the forward-only direction of time, its universality, its connection to the expansion of space, and relativity. The paper, A Model of Time, does all that. What follows on this page is a discussion of the model of time, with little math.
The Surface of the Hyperverse is Composed of Vortices
In the Hubble constant paper we show that the surface of the hypersphere, the universe, is composed of energy. We will now claim that the hyperverse surface exists in the form of vortices, essentially small versions of the hyperverse. At this point all I can say is, be patient, as the vortex concept is powerful, producing viable solutions to a variety of major questions such as what time is, how the universe grew from a Planck scale object, as well as giving an insight into the existence of matter and gravity.
Frames and Cells
The 2c radial expansion gives a distinct and precise relationship between the speed of light and the hyperverse radial expansion rate of 2c., saying that the speed of light is one-half the radial expansion speed. The hyperverse radius moves radially two units of distance for every one unit of distance light moves along the surface. There are two radial steps per each translational (within the universe) step for light. We will call the radial steps, "frame advances". The idea is similar to motion picture frames, still shots, which, when run together produces motion. In this model, no motion is allowed between frame advances. We can compare the frame advances to the tick of the hyperverse clock, with one tick per frame advance.
The units of space themselves will be referred to here as "’cells". We will show these cells to be quanta later, but it is sufficient here to call them cells. It is hypothesized that the cells are, like the hyperverse itself, hollow, spinning four dimensional vortices, but much smaller, as they comprise the surface of the hyperverse.
We can develop a model based on these ideas, and we will refer to it as a ’frame and cell’ model. Using this terminology we can state that light advances radially two frames while moving laterally, within the surface volume, one cell.
The Energy and Rotational Speed of Each Cell is Identical
The vortices spin, and their energy is the energy related to spin. This 'rotational kinetic energy' is the result of the mass of the cell and its speed of rotation. We will define the rotational kinetic energy as potential energy, as compared to translational kinetic energy, the energy associated with place to place motion. The speed of rotation of each cell is identical.
Centripetal Velocity Determines the Frequency of Rotation
If each vortex has the identical amount of energy, and a vortex passes by, going at a constant velocity, we would deduce that some of that energy is allocated to motion, or translational kinetic energy. That means there is less rotational energy, and that implies a slower spin rate, or frequency. The faster the speed, the more kinetic energy we would measure, and we'd see a lower frequency.
The Base Frequency
Our own vortices, which are not moving relative to us, would be seen as having all their energy allocated to spin, and thus would have the maximum frequency possible.
Comparing the Observed to Base Frequencies
When we measure time, we use our clock, the base frequency clock. The moving clock will be seen to run more slowly because its frequency is seen to be lower. The ratio of the mover's frequency to our frequency is what we see as relativity. Nobody's clock is actually running more slowly; it is all a consequence of the apparent allocation of energy between translational motion and rotational motion.
Two Steps to Time
Time is thus a result of both the 2c radial expansion of space and the energy aspects of the vortices that make up space and matter.
In the Model of Time paper, the "energy of time" is described, and related to centripetal velocity. I'd encourage you to read it. It will help you even more with understanding 'what is time?'