Current timekeeping systems reflect historical accidents rather than logical design. The base-60 division of hours and minutes originated from Sumerian finger-counting methods, while our irregular Gregorian calendar stems from Roman political manipulation. This paper proposes “Number Time,” a decimal-based temporal system designed to reduce cognitive load, eliminate timezone confusion, and align with natural human rhythms through percentage-based daily measurement, standardized calendar structures, and location-specific sunrise references.

Introduction: The Problem with Current Time Systems

The contemporary global timekeeping framework suffers from fundamental inefficiencies rooted in historical contingency. Our 24-hour day divided into 60-minute hours and 60-second minutes exists solely because ancient Sumerians counted using the 12 finger joints on one hand multiplied by five fingers on the other, creating a base-60 system. This sexagesimal system, while mathematically divisible, creates unnecessary complexity for modern cognition.

The Gregorian calendar compounds these problems. Month lengths vary arbitrarily between 28, 30, and 31 days due to Roman political decisions—July and August both contain 31 days because Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar each demanded months named after them with maximum days. The calendar omits a year zero, jumping from 1 BCE to 1 CE, creating mathematical complications. Furthermore, timezones and daylight saving time generate persistent errors in global software systems, scheduling conflicts, and measurable productivity losses in international collaboration.

Studies on cognitive load theory demonstrate that working memory can only process 2-4 chunks of novel information simultaneously and retain information for approximately 20 seconds without prompting. Current time systems exceed these cognitive limits, requiring technological assistance for even basic calculations—assistance that frequently fails, as evidenced by widespread timezone conversion errors in software development.

Proposal Component 1: Daily Percentage Time

The first component converts hours, minutes, and seconds into percentages of a complete Earth rotation. Under this system:

• 3:40 AM becomes 0.15278 (15.278% of a day)
• 12:01 AM becomes 0.0007 (0.07% of a day)
• One hour equals 0.04167 days (4.167% of a day, or approximately 4.2%)
• “Spend a percent on this task” means approximately 14.4 minutes

This decimal system aligns with the globally successful metric system, which has been adopted by nearly every nation since France’s initial implementation in 1840. The metric system succeeded precisely because of its base-10 simplicity—the same principle applies to temporal measurement. While base-60 offers more divisibility factors than base-10 (60 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60), studies show that humans naturally process base-10 calculations more efficiently due to our ten-finger biology.

Percentage-based time planning already exists in project management contexts. Construction teams use Percent Plan Complete (PPC) metrics to track weekly task completion, with studies showing that percentage-based planning improves coordination across disciplines and enhances productivity. Resource allocation systems increasingly use “percentage of capacity” methods rather than absolute hour counts, as percentages align more intuitively with how managers conceptualize workload distribution.

Proposal Component 2: Predictable Calendar Structure

Number Time proposes a 36-day month divided into 6-day weeks (36 days = 6 weeks = 1 month). This structure ensures predictable work schedules where weekends consistently fall on the same numerical dates each month.

The historical precedent for calendar reform demonstrates both demand and feasibility. Moses Cotsworth’s International Fixed Calendar (1902) proposed 13 months of 28 days each, with every date fixed to the same weekday. George Eastman adopted this calendar for Kodak from 1928 to 1989, demonstrating its practical viability for business operations. The League of Nations seriously considered calendar reform in the 1920s, with momentum “never stronger than in the late 1920s.”

Alternative week lengths have been explored extensively. The compressed work schedule literature shows that 4-day workweeks, 9-day fortnights, and even 10-day extended work periods can maintain or improve productivity while enhancing work-life balance. A New Zealand financial services firm implementing a 4-day week saw a 20% productivity improvement and work-life balance scores rising from 54% to 78%.

Proposal Component 3: Solar Year Framework

The year would comprise 10 months of 36 days (360 days) plus one 5-day week, with leap day adjustments following Gregorian rules (divisible by 4 but not 100, except if divisible by 400, with an additional exception for 3200). Alternatively, 12 months of 30 days could maintain more cultural continuity. The final week celebrates “annual synergistic achievements,” creating a universal holiday period.

This structure addresses the fundamental irrationality of current month divisions. As a 1927 issue of The Outlook proclaimed: “A month is a wholly irrational division of time. It has no relation to anything in astronomy, or human experience.” Indeed, while the 7-day week has remained stable for millennia, irregular month lengths ranging from 28 to 31 days create the primary scheduling complications.

Proposal Component 4: Sunrise Universal Number

Perhaps the most innovative component replaces timezone offsets and daylight saving time with location-specific sunrise timing as the universal wake-up reference. Everyone globally would reset their clocks to 0.0 at local sunrise, aligning with natural circadian rhythms.

Scientific evidence strongly supports this alignment. The circadian pacemaker—the body’s master biological clock—is most sensitive to light in the morning and evening. Morning sunlight causes phase advances (earlier sleep), while evening light causes phase delays (later sleep). Getting sunlight at sunrise is the strongest “zeitgeber” (time-keeper) for entraining circadian rhythms to the 24-hour day.

Research demonstrates that natural light exposure at consistent times significantly impacts alertness, sleep quality, and overall health. Even when eyes are closed, photoreceptors detect sunlight and inhibit melatonin production. The Sleep Health Foundation notes that disruptions to circadian rhythm from time changes affect concentration and daytime energy. By synchronizing social time with solar time at each location, Number Time eliminates the health costs of daylight saving time, which research shows takes a toll on health, wellbeing, and economic productivity.

Under this system:

• Everyone wakes at 0.0d (sunrise)
• Work hours occur at 0.4-0.75d (40-75% of the day)
• “Let’s take a 2 percent break for lunch” means approximately 28.8 minutes
• Sunset occurs at 0.75-0.85d
• Nightlife bars open at 0.9d and close at 0.1d (next sunrise)
• Everyone enjoys weekends on the same dates: 5th, 11th, 17th, 23rd, 29th, and 35th

The UTC hour offset equivalents would range from approximately -0.5 to +0.5 sun units (-10 sun to +10 sun), creating a continuous gradient rather than discrete timezone jumps. TV schedules would list “SUN+1” meaning 0.1 days (approximately 2.4 hours) after sunrise at that longitude.

Proposal Component 5: Exponential Day Notation

To improve comprehension of vast time scales, Number Time uses exponential notation with days as the fundamental unit:

• Universe age: 5 trillion days = 5e12d (vs. 13.8 billion years)
• Year 2025 CE: 740 thousand days (740Td) since reference point
• 1 BCE: -720Tdc (thousands of days, computer epoch)
• Unix timestamp epoch (1970-2024): 20Td
• July 5, 2025, 6pm UTC: 20274.75dc

This notation leverages scientific notation’s proven effectiveness for managing large and small numbers. Scientific notation has been standard in calculators since 1972 and is fundamental to all scientific communication. Engineering notation (exponents in multiples of 3) is already widely used because it aligns with standard SI prefixes (kilo, mega, giga).

Human lifespan examples demonstrate practical scale:

• EU average lifespan: 30Td
• US average lifespan: 28Td
• Japan average lifespan: 31Td
• Generational time (parent to child): 10Td = 10,000 days ≈ 27.4 years

Proposal Component 6: Standardized Notation

Number Time employs consistent number-then-unit formatting: “2025.6, 4.63” or “2012.9y and 4.20523d”. Conversion factors:

• 1 day = 0.002737 years
• 1 year = 365.2425 days
• 1 year = 31,536,000 seconds
• 1 day = 86,400 seconds
• 1 second = 0.000011574 days

Times can be expressed as single numbers or summed components, similar to how 1.5 hours can be written as “1 hour + 30 minutes” or simply “90 minutes.”

Historical Context: Why Previous Reforms Failed

Understanding why previous temporal reforms failed illuminates the challenges facing Number Time. France implemented decimal time in 1793 as part of the Revolutionary Calendar, dividing days into 10 hours of 100 minutes, with each minute containing 100 seconds. Mandatory from September 1794 to April 1795, the system lasted only 197 days.

The failure stemmed from practical rather than conceptual problems. As engineer Bouquet de la Grye noted in 1897: “The metric system succeeded because it was the simplest and it put an end to a veritable incoherence in local measures; the decimalisation of time and circumference failed because the whole world employed the same measures.” In other words, there was no existing chaos to fix—everyone already used the same 24-hour system.

Additionally, decimal time would have made all existing instruments obsolete, from clocks to astronomical devices, requiring massive capital investment. Physical units (amps, volts, ohms, watts) were based on traditional time units, necessitating complete reformulation of electrical engineering.

Number Time learns from these failures in several ways:

Digital Implementation: Unlike the 1790s, modern time is already digital. Changing display algorithms requires software updates, not new hardware manufacturing. 1.

Gradual Adoption: Decimal time was mandated by revolutionary decree. Number Time would be voluntary, allowing market forces and practical advantages to drive adoption. 1.

Addressing Real Problems: Unlike 1793, we now have genuine pain points—timezone errors cost companies millions in lost productivity, scheduling conflicts plague global teams, and daylight saving time changes disrupt health and safety. 1.

Scientific Alignment: Decimal time conflicted with astronomical observation methods. Number Time aligns with circadian biology and decimal mathematics simultaneously.

Cognitive and Productivity Benefits

Time perception research reveals that humans experience duration subjectively based on cognitive load, attention, and information density rather than absolute time. Studies using the Hurst exponent show that cognitive effort continues increasing even beyond working memory capacity, with scale-invariance suppression serving as a proxy for mental exertion.

Percentage-based time representation could reduce cognitive load in several ways:

Intuitive Estimation: Studies on time-saving bias show that humans struggle with speed-time calculations. “Take 2 percent” is cognitively simpler than “take 28.8 minutes.” 1.

Workplace Productivity: The 40-hour work week, established by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, was based on Henry Ford’s 1926 discovery that 48-hour weeks yielded only marginal productivity gains. Expressing this as “50% of waking hours” makes the absurdity more apparent—half of conscious existence spent working. 1.

Universal Comprehension: Productivity metrics already use percentage-based formulas. Employee productivity = (Time spent at work / Shift time) × 100. Number Time extends this intuitive framework to all temporal measurement.

Earth’s Changing Rotation and Leap Seconds

An unexpected advantage of Number Time’s sunrise-based system is its robustness to Earth’s variable rotation. Since 2020, Earth has been spinning faster than at any point in modern measurement history, shortening days by milliseconds. July 9 and July 22, 2025 were 1.3-1.4 milliseconds short, and August 5, 2025 is projected to be 1.5 milliseconds short.

This acceleration may necessitate the first-ever negative leap second by 2029—subtracting a second from Coordinated Universal Time. Between 1972 and 2016, 27 positive leap seconds were added to account for Earth’s slowing rotation caused by tidal friction and lunar recession. The reversal is attributed to changes in Earth’s liquid outer core rotation and polar ice mass redistribution from climate change.

Leap seconds create significant technical challenges. GPS systems, financial networks, and computing infrastructure rely on atomic time precision. Even one-second mismatches can cause system failures. The tech industry has debated eliminating leap seconds entirely.

Number Time sidesteps this problem. By synchronizing to local sunrise rather than atomic time, the system automatically accommodates Earth’s variable rotation. Sunrise timing naturally reflects current planetary rotation speed without requiring manual adjustments.

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Challenge 1: Global Coordination

Solution: Unlike decimal time’s mandatory imposition, Number Time could begin with opt-in communities, technology companies, or specific industries. Software developers—who already suffer disproportionately from timezone bugs—represent a logical early-adopter demographic.

Challenge 2: Cultural Attachment

Solution: Maintain dual systems during transition. Clocks could display both traditional and Number Time, similar to how temperature apps show both Celsius and Fahrenheit. The existing month names (January, February, etc.) could be retained with standardized lengths.

Challenge 3: Economic Cost

Solution: Modern timekeeping is already software-based. The marginal cost of adding Number Time to smartphones, computers, and smart devices approaches zero—a simple algorithm update. No physical clocks need replacement; apps can display Number Time instead.

Challenge 4: International Business

Solution: Number Time actually simplifies international business. Rather than converting “3pm EST to Tokyo time,” meetings schedule at “SUN+0.4” (40% through the day after local sunrise). Everyone knows this falls within standard working hours regardless of season or location.

Challenge 5: Historical Data

Solution: Conversion algorithms allow perfect translation between systems. Just as we convert between Celsius and Fahrenheit, or kilometers and miles, timestamps can convert between traditional and Number Time with mathematical precision.

Conclusion

Number Time represents more than cosmetic reform—it addresses fundamental cognitive inefficiencies in temporal measurement. By aligning with base-10 mathematics, circadian biology, and intuitive percentage-based reasoning, the system could reduce the mental overhead of time calculation, eliminate timezone confusion, and standardize calendar structure.

The proposal faces significant adoption barriers, as all calendar reforms do. Yet the convergence of digital technology, global collaboration imperatives, and growing awareness of circadian health creates an unprecedented opportunity. Just as the metric system succeeded by offering clear advantages over chaotic local measures, Number Time offers solutions to real problems: timezone errors, irregular schedules, and cognitive complexity.

The question is not whether current time systems are optimal—clearly they are not, being products of Sumerian finger-counting and Roman political vanity. The question is whether the benefits of reform justify the transition costs. In an era when software updates propagate globally overnight, when knowledge workers collaborate across continents, and when circadian disruption contributes to epidemic health problems, the case for rational temporal measurement grows stronger by the day—or perhaps we should say, by the 0.01d.