Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Hoang Hai: on 9/14/17 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote With my Absolute Theory 2011 - I have told more about this in : My unusual...

Hoang Hai: on 12/9/12 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote Dear to Moderators FQXi Along with my genuine thanks,is a sincere comments...

Hoang Hai: on 12/6/12 at 4:28am UTC, wrote ON THE OCCASION OF THE END OF ESSAY CONTETS Dear to all of you To me:...

Hoang Hai: on 12/6/12 at 4:24am UTC, wrote Uncle de Wilde It's a point of obsolete and the fact that: is inefficient...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 10/23/12 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Good afternoon Hai, The "absolute" TOE is in my humble opinion a wishfull...

Anonymous: on 10/23/12 at 1:17am UTC, wrote The Absolute theory of Hoàngcao Hải is actually a theory capable of...




Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event." in Good Vibrations

Kwan Chiang: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Monika Součková: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..." in Quantum Machine Learning...

Jim Snowdon: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..." in How does an Isolated...

click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

January 18, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Incorrect Assumptions and a Correct Theory by Hoang Cao Hai [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

The universe is our inside because we are the fully part of it. To be able to understand and find out the basic principles of the universe,perhapsIs the first we be must to really understand the nature of the our thinking: Why we are wrong ?and how we were right? Where are our limits? and how to overcome it? Let's carefully look back to the past, specified for the present and to get the logical choice for future.Mean that is along with to reviewed the assumptions foundation of basic theory,we should be directed to the purpose for which we need from them.

Author Bio

Full name:Hoàng cao Hải Gender:Male Date of birth : 1971 Place of birth and current residence:Hanoi-Vietnam Education Level:High School Professional qualifications:Technical Measurement Current work:Self-study theory new foundation for science The ability of schools: Analysis,Reasoning,Imagining The results work:the ABSOLUTE theory (2011)

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:04 GMT
Send comments to :

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 05:16 GMT
Most accurate: the ABSOLUTE theory of me is


A theory is always open and no boundaries with the criteria:

Correct for everything and enough for all problems

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:36 GMT
Dear All readers

Expect teachers sympathetic to the my English as "computer automatically type".

Really grateful Teacher Eckard Blumschein was pointed out errors "very silly" about the speed of light in air is 90.000m / s (was misspelled 90.000km / s), although this will not change the problem stated in my essay.

Hope All readers satisfied.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 05:38 GMT

That is the answer to all questions

Is the base and the nature of any foundations or all platforms

It is unique so can not deny

Is the Absolutely so have not error

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
The ABSOLUTE THEORY and an explanation of the nature of the Mass

The nature of each thing or each matter always only one!

That's the truth. And the Truth is certainly is the Absolute .

Can not have and does not require two principles for any one result.

Although there are many things and facts are identical, but can not be two the same things to co-exist in the same location on the space and in the same time of the time.

That mean is in space and in time the everything are always worth Absolutely.

For example: The Nature of the Mass

Be identified due to the change by the purely feel and rely on

the determination by our measurement equipment.

Must be the impact to get this changes,and the absolutely is only

one the mainly reason,that of course is the impact of a type of

the force.

So: the absolutely nature or the definition of mass would be:

Expression due the impact of force on to the material.

What do you think about this idea?

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 06:21 GMT
This theory just need based on the phenomenon or the matter occurs is able to identify the principles and nature of the phenomenon and that matter.

So can take out result of the problem is specific and detailed.

As well as can make the most reasonable orientation effects to get the desired results.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Hoang,

I agree with you than gravitation may have attractive and pushing action. For example pushing action is possible because of Gravitational torsion field when the spin torsion field counteracts to strong gravitation of hadrons in atomic nucleus.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Sergey

I am very happy with your comments, as well as agree with "The current paradigm of physical knowledge is obsolete and is subject to inevitable replacement

based on the transition to substantial theoretical models of a deeper level" of you.

Wish you always happy!

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:39 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share

Anonymous replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:40 GMT
hoang cao hai,

I would be a little more convinced that perhaps you had read the essays of others if you had not copied and pasted the same post to so many different ones. I will read yours but all on here desire true feedback for our own too. Please pick out questions or what aspects of other essays you agree or disagree with in order to help us.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:41 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

There are too many language errors in your paper for it to be seriously considered for publication in the Scientific American journal.That is not said to be unkind but so that you are made aware of that shortcoming. Having said that I did enjoy it. My overall impression is of a powerful curiosity and optimism that answers to many questions can be found. It contains so many big questions that are often not given deep consideration. Having really good questions is important.

What do we mean by 'the Universe' is one very good one. I asked George Ellis what is 'the real universe' in his opinion because he used that term. I did look up the word 'Universe' in a dictionary a while back and it said words to the effect 'everything that exists'. That definition is itself a problem because; is that everything that is known to exist, or everything that can be known to exist, or is it all that can be imagined to exist too (but at the same time excluding imaginary things)? It seems to me the visible universe is only the fabricated images of former things excluding that which exists.

Max Tegmark talked about a number of different kinds of multiverse at the FQXi SETTING TIME ARIGHT conference, the video is available on you tube. One kind are those that are separate because the distance is too large for information to ever reach between them. So are they really still the same universe or different universes? Also IMO each individual observer will experience their own version of the universe fabricated from the data they have received out of a vast "multiverse of possibilities" that might have been observed.

Part of the problem is the way in which the ideas are communicated, as there isn't a common understanding of many terms commonly used. Which is another important point made at the FQXi SETTING TIME ARIGHT conference.

I hope you get lots of interested readers and good feedback. Kind regards Georgina.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT
Dear Anonymous and Georgina Parry

I am very happy to read your comments and was very sad about the my English language.

Sorry for not making you happy, even though I've spent a lot of time to read and evaluate for other essays.

The reason for I have no more comment because every essay gives a perspective and different measures, even though we share the same Topics.

That so,it is very difficult to get consensus on the method of settlement, which is the same as the formula E = mc2 will is how to calculate the energy for a potato or a bread?

So that, I have chosen measures is to create a specific purpose for all of us, the hope is to focus everyone's ability to gradually solve the problems really exist.

To collect opinions of Anonymous, I will do as comments of you.

Probably is not much more than a general orientation:

Be for these results have practical value for our own lives!

The purpose for what we are doing is to turn dreams into reality or make the obvious becomes unreal and vague as dreams?

I appreciate the essay by Georgina Parry,because have not using the mathematical formula that contains many unknowns to solve the problem is still a mystery because of insufficient grounds or basis to confirmed.

As example : 1x + 2y = 3z

that is : 1 of the unknown + 2 of not seen = 3 things can not be understood as anything?

or formula : A = bc / d

while the A, b, c and d are still the concept is not clear and are not sure is true or not?

Hope this idea does not make you uncomfortable.

Kind regards ! Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear hoang cao hai:

Your essay, in words identify the real problems of physics...and philosophy. You are correct to begin the study at ground zero, i.e. a "beginning". But, to logically assess any start, there must be evidence which obviously is impossible. (we weren't there).

So, it seems that the best one can do is assume the success of quantum theory, i.e. "probabilities" is promising. In my End Notes, I show a tentative and simple model that identifies probabilities as being related to "space dimensions", i.e. 0-D,1-D,2-D,and 3-D and recently discovered that a "frequency" correction causes extrapolations to 3... or 4-D!! Time is definitely involved with probability. Infinite time can cause anything to occur..

Perhaps those more intelligent and better mathematically inclined can make better sense of it, or destroy the approach. Either way.I would be pleased.

To Seek Unknown Shores

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Ted Erikson - Many thanks for your comment.

Unfortunately, your essay is too heavy for the ability to open my computer translation.

The main ideas that you have mentioned about quantum theory and mathematics, I think so :

1. Quantum theory is the most reasonable (compared to general relativity and string theory) I also use the basic principles of quantum for the my absolute theory. But it still is not enough,because there is quite many things are called "darkness" in our science.

2. We have lost too much time and effort to renovate and fix it but still no satisfactory results.Even, it seems that the efforts that have made quantum theory more trouble as today.

Because apparently Mathematics is just a tool of science, is used to determine the specific results for a particular problem from the specific grounds established by the imagination and logical reasoning to identify issues beyond our perception.

You can see that: the mathematical equations too far removed from reality?

The formula E = mc2 will is how to calculate the energy for a potato or a bread?

We determine the particle "subatomic" with the ability of technology, that technological capabilities are limited and do not have the norms for ability, and things that are beyond the capabilities of technology will surely forever are "dark"?

With current technology, we identified "subatomic", technology development than we will discover even smaller particles, and so on until (approximately few trillion century later) will probably find nuts "can not be divided" as the definition of "atoms" be had from a long time ago.

Whether your choice is how, if you really believe,please fight to the end for it.

I am very lucky when to know you.Kind regards ! Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT
Hi Hoang, Your opening "The universe is inside" is the base of my own reasoning. I saw that you sent the same messages on several essay's, you are right to ask attention for your work. So do I , please read (and rate, I will rate yours )


Good luck


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde

“Our consciousness emerged from a certain order of particles. Our experience of time

emerges from our memory .We experience our order as unique and solely created for the

"I" which is the centre of our consciousness. The “I” has emerged from the experiences

memorized.”also similar to the view in the my absolute theory about "matter and consciousness"

Unfortunately, in this topic I'm writing about the universe.

I hope to be regularly exchanged with Uncle on this field more.

I rated 10 points for this essay.

Please send comments to :

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 19:20 GMT
Dear Hoang,

See the answers for your questions at my page.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Sergey

Unfortunately, the way your answer depend on CERN and wait for the recognition of humanity.

Kind Regards.

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Caohoàng Hai,

I read your bio. info. - by coincidence, in 1970 I was in the U.S. Army stationed near the village of Dong ba Thin in a helicopter repair shop. I mostly kept the fuel supply, often driving tanker trucks to the nearby fuel depot near the airport on the Cam Ranh peninsula, usually stopping by the beautiful white beaches there to swim in the South China Sea. I also liked...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 01:15 GMT
Many thanks uncle James. Unfortunately,uncle not involved in this topic.

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 02:21 GMT
Unfortunately, rude nephew rejects sincere attempt to communicate. Perhaps you should have read my essay to assess my 'involvement' before posting your solicitous comment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
Very sorry uncle James, was a silly bug too.

In view of her: dark matter as well as the gravity force,is the call comes from our subjective perception for "things and phenomena" of Nature.

That is, the way to call it, we have created a concept to accept, and inadvertently acknowledged that is the nature of things or phenomena.

To be able to assess the nature of dark matter and gravity in theory Absolutely,i need to have specific information about objects or events that make calling to that.

The information my get of the two problems mentioned above is very vague, so do not dare to participate more in the assessment of this specific areas.

Or rather I see two issues in an other way even is completely different, so if I take join in it, will have to rename for both that problem.

Probably is a bit more complicated than the scope of an essay contest.

The Absolutely theory of me is built completely independent, so defined or determined also completely different with all of current theory.

Absolutely theory without the gravity or dark matter to solve problems "matter or force".

So is repeat "sorry" with uncle, hoping uncle did not therefore then stop constantly, we're sure there are many other topics in the vast ocean of knowledge, okay ? Uncle James.

Bookmark and Share

Anon wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Good Luck with that Dear "fill in the blank" stuff ... it earned you a 1 rating from me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 03:06 GMT
Dear Anon

That is " used.."

"Stuff to used it earned you a 1 rating from me". Ok ?

Do you think that : if does not impact, there will be no changes ?


Bookmark and Share

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai

I read your essay. As Georgina said it has many language mistakes, but I could understand your meaning. But the important thing is that I enjoyed the thoughts you expressed concerning the need to find out the Truth inside us. It is almost a religious quest. Humanity has advanced greatly by adopting the scientific method of doubt and experiment. It has brought us some physical comfort because of the advances of technology, medicine, etc. But not a sense of peace of mind or inner harmony. Your questioning the Big Bang reflects this unease. Unfortunately science is based on an accumulation of experimental facts, and we have to accept them, and reinterpret them if necessary. I wish God had given an Instruction, Maintenance and Repair Manual to humanity...but there is no such thing. We discover it in various ways. Science is one of these ways.

I wish you the best in your thoughts and dreams for inner and outer peace and understanding.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Many thanks Vladimir.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Really admire plan of Uncle!

With a huge number of problems that you want to adjust.

The my theory is very simple,but can not protest.

The standard model has a lot of loopholes, the most basic is the determination of nuts:

Although atoms was established as the "smallest and can not be divided" from long time ago, but when we try to measure to determine for it,then has created the opportunity for "subatomic" was born thanks the development of technology.

That is, when more technology grows, we will find many kinds of particles smaller than "sub-atomic", but it certainly is not smaller particles "smallest and can not be divided" - (news from CERN: "identified seeds is like Higg boson, but lighter?") - if speed collisions to the "c squared" do not know "protrude" how many kinds of particles? seed would be "ultra low Higg" and will arise ....

Also, in my absolute theory is no boundary between religion and science.

Hopefully there will soon be publicized conditions to consult of Uncle.

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
Caohoàng Hai thân men,

Have you tried It can translate English into Vietnamese and Vietnamese into English. Maybe this would help you.

Unfortunately, some Vietnamese letters cannot be copied to comments...


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:01 GMT
Thanks Uncle Jim

I still translate via google, and then edit the dictionary, so the result is not stable.fortunately is still be accepted.

Do you know many of language Vietnamese ?

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
Caohoàng Hai thân men,

I'm afraid I've forgotten almost anything I learned >40 years ago, which was then an unfortunate mix of Vietnamese, French and English... I recall mostly that there were many phonemic sounds that I could not seem to make!

As I said before, I'm very interested in gravitation. If I can say, your understanding of gravity is not quite in agreement with established theory - mine somewhat also. You said:

"The earth and the planets in our solar system orbit is also due to the gravitational attraction from the sun? That is sucked into the sun not only our planet but also to those planets near and far the sun than Earth, so what makes us and the planet do not sticking to the sun?"

In my view, each massive object produces a diminishing gradient field of kinetic energy in external spacetime, by locally contracting spacetime. As each planet has energy directed towards it, it is the interaction of two opposingly directed fields that produces the apparent net effect of attraction.

I think planets do not fall into the Sun because their own directed energy fields (slightly) oppose the Sun's (locally diminished) field, which is directed to it. Small bodies, such as ourselves, fall to Earth because our own opposingly directed gravitational field is so small. We do not fall to the Sun because here the Earth's directed force is locally stronger than the force directed to the Sun.

Also, I do not find any definition for the term "Acsimet" (thrust), but I cannot agree that there is a repulsive force related to gravitation. But that would be another complex discussion...

I hope this little bit is understandable - I know I unfortunately use complex language. I appreciate your consideration!

Best wishes,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
Uncle Jim.

Thrust (of liquid) Acsimet (Archimedes) is the Famous story as "Eureka!" by Archimedes (Greek) found when he see insurgent water level in the tub!

Archimedes theorem of thrust is stated as follows:

Any object submerged in whole or in part, in a fluid will be a thrust equivalent, but in the opposite direction, the weight of the fluid occupied - Excerpt from vi.wikipedia. org

According to my research on gravity: the naming and application the "Gravity" has created a vague and not specific to the real nature of this force.

We still naming for the force was "to stick" our with the Earth's is the gravity, and that it is an "attraction" due to the earth rotation (generated magnetic), while accepting that cause of the "space bending" of the Earth as well as the Sun and other planets.

According to my absolute principle: each problem by only one cause.

The conclusion will be confirmed for - the "gravity" above - is:

1.The sun is the only source of motivation to decide all the activity in the Solar System.So its nature is to create resources "pushed out" and not "attract in".

2.The earth and other planets (as well as other objects) in the solar system will be in force "Pressed down" or "compression in" and not be able to "self-attracting".

Therefore, if the "gravity" is applied, including the Sun and the planets in the solar system is not correct.

If we try to apply it may be to accept the repulsive force is reasonable.

Interpretation issues in my essay as a "suggestive" (according direction of FQXi) plus the English language "automatically" will annoy you.

Suggest you sympathize and asked to me more detailed

Dear Uncle ! Have you accidental have one granddaughter is "Gravity and attraction" ?

Bookmark and Share

Russ Otter wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Hai.Caohoang,

Based on your query to me at my Essay site: Russ Otter

Congrats on your submission... I just finished reading it, and found it an open-book as to the questions of life! Such as your question: Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything to have volume? That is a question, that is larger than our understanding currently, and perhaps infinitely. That is the nature of many of your questions, they are part of an infinite landscape, that will forever push us forward to seek answers.

Many questions in life are too large for our knowledge, as finite sentient beings, contained in the indefinable scope of the infinite.

Your final paragraph, discussed god. That is also a question to big a question for finite beings to honestly answer. Therefore, I must be an agnostic on that issue. That is true of much regarding physics, and philosophy. They are married, regardless of choice.

I would be happy to work with you, as you mentioned, as two heads are better than one..., but I would first have you read my Essay's @ , in order that you understand my answers to many of your questions regarding physics and life.

Cheers buddy, and all the best in your pursuits to learn. Science is the truth still unraveled,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 05:28 GMT
Dear Russ W Otter

If we inference on the overall scale : there will be no beginning or end.

But when we look at a limited scale on a particular object or event, such as: a house, a person or a state as well as a planet or a planetary system, there must always be a beginning and end of that limit.

It seems the term "universe" are using is called of "visible universe" or more specifically our solar system.

Unfortunately, we still do not have a specific definition for "universe" which we want to find out.

Therefore, the discussion often arises unnecessary disagreements like this.

It would be more interesting if you written more than in the essay.

It looks like you in favor of Theology and Religion.

In view of and the absolutely theory of me, there is no boundary between Science and Theology or Religion and Science.

Would be very happy if I can help you something and vice versa.

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Caohoàng Hai thân men,

If I understand, then, you propose that the gravitational effects causing planets to orbit the Sun are not the same universal gravitation that causes moons to orbit planets? Since the law of universal gravitation can be very usefully applied to both realms, it seems to me unlikely that the two nearly identical effects would be caused by different processes.

As I tried to explain, I personally view gravitation as a 'push' from space contracted by a condensed mass. The appearance of attraction as described by Newton is the combined result of two opposingly directed 'pushing' fields of space.

I do not subscribe to the existence of a physical force of attraction, only the approximation of a net effect of attraction produced by the interaction of external fields produced by massive objects. That aside, I really don't know how many accidental granddaughters I have - I do think the two I know are quite attractive, but that's a different matter...


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 06:38 GMT
Uncle Jim

It's about "the language barrier" fortunately we still can understand each other intentionally.

The story about her niece "attractive" to for a more pleasant atmosphere, if accidental the girl as well love the science as Uncle and me, we will have more stories to tell.

Rude nephew.

Bookmark and Share

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 10:59 GMT
Caohoàng Hai thân men,

Yes! I certainly don't know where she got her love of math...

Thanks, Grandpa Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear hoang cao hai,

I enjoyed in reading your interesting Essay. I am going to give you an high score.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT

I was pleased to find two very important propositions consistent with my own. I have reworded them in good English as I believe you intended and as I've also found;

"Perhaps we have to find how to define limits of spaces adjacent to each other in the universe, to determine the nature of the formation and operational features of a region of space, before finding an accurate assumption for a general theory about the beginning of the universe or a certain bounded region in space."

"Answers are always in front of our eyes or within all of us, the effects and specific details of that truth show through every day in front of us."

I hope you may read, find commonality, and and score my own essay, which I hope you find brings real physical meaning and proof to the above.

Best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Uncle Peter Jackson

"Our physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature.

Too weak those two alone, far greater wholes than sums of parts.

The road forks in the mist, we must decide, anon, not later.

Reject false points and lines, rotate in time, follow your hearts!

So is the soul of every man just built on his assumption?

Can we take arms and...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT

I think I agree with those parts of your comments that I think I understand.

You will see from my recent discussions with Pentcho on my essay blog that I am indeed stressing the absolute importance of the brain as the receptor and analyser. But I identify a very important aspect of this, that when the body is in motion, the wavelength of em signals approaching a lens is then different to the wavelength AFTER interaction, and when approaching the brain.

This is discussed in my essay last year along with the LHC's very effective role as a 'speedometer' for detecting speed with respect to the vacuum, which is in theory not possible in SRT!! Then as you say, 'weight' as well as speed are only relative to the local background field.

I hope you can work at your English, or get a better translation programme, to improve communication as your physical intuition is probably good, but very difficult to tell!!

Best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 01:21 GMT
Maybe I should married a wife is British or American?

Bookmark and Share

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

At this point of our assumptions on physical universe, your theory on ‘right’ over ‘wrong’ is right, whereas the ‘wrong’ is not wrong in every point in these assumptions.

With best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Hoang,

As promised, I have just read your essay! Let me make a few remarks.

1. On the topic of "multiple universes," this can mean several different things. Sometimes "a universe" is just a convenient way of describing something that is self-contained in a certain sense. For instance, the "causal universes" in my essay are not to be confused with "The Universe," of which I...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Benjamin F. Dribus

Many thanks for your detailed comments.

Bookmark and Share

Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
As per your comment on my blog.

Your start point is correct, ie we, and indeed all sentient organisms, are part of reality. This is so obvious, and fundamental, and yet is often ignored; so in the assumptions of many theories, humans attain some form of superiority &/or are deemed to be separate from reality.

But, you then confuse the next step. The above means that, from a scientific perspective, it must be accepted that we are trapped in an existential loop, and therefore can only know what is within that (ie the “universe” as is potentially knowable). Know indicating information which has validity. So the question is: given that existential confine, what constitutes “right or wrong” (or valid/not valid, objective/subjective)? And the answer is: that which is either validated direct experience, or that which can be properly inferred therefrom. Because reality exists independently of the sensory processes which enable awareness of it. Physically existent phenomena are received by these sensory detection systems. But, in order to extricate objective knowledge of what was received, and hence objective knowledge of what caused that, we have to overcome a variety of practical problems in the sensory processes (one of which is potentially, thinking!).

In simple language, the aim can only be to depict and explain what is manifest. That does not necessarily occur perfectly, so we have to deploy methods to counteract that. But that does not include invoking assertions which are not based on some form of validated experience.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT
Glad your suggestions.

Misunderstanding may be due to "dissent" or simply than likely "English".

My purpose is very specific:

A the right theory of is be must always "right" for all related issues, have been verified in practice or experimental,have not any point is "wrong" and must be able to reject all criticism are given.


Bookmark and Share

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT

But the question is: what can constitute 'right'. And the answer to that lies in understanding how what we experience can occur, and how we experience it.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Hai,

Thank you for reading the essay

Conscience is the cosmological constant and resonating it with the absolute truth with in us in your essay.

What we believe in does not matter, what matters is the belief itself.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

Very interesting essay. After you mentioned, I could a point where you are making reference to precisely the notion I call the final theory of physics:

“ there must be a reason common to all theories, because it is the Truth.

The truth always existed and that is reason, also is the goal that all our assumptions are hope. It probably would be a "assume for nothing assume" or "the foundation of every platform" or is "the most basic" And of course that would be true is the correct theory for physics and cosmology as well as all other branches of our science. “

These notions are precisely the characteristics of the final theory of physics. The idea of “assume for nothing assume” is discussed in my essay when I say that the final theory define what are physical assumptions. Basically all the assumptions that are added to the final theory are physical assumptions, therefore, the final theory makes no physical assumption!

This theory is also “a common ground for basically of everything.”, in your words. Our ideas are deeply connected, thanks for your suggestion about this relation.

Best regards


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 08:58 GMT
I hope so : we are will become friends.

Send to :

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Hoàng cào Hai,

Thank you for reading my essay and for posting such a perspicacious comment about it I regret that I cannot answer any of your probing questions. As far as I am concerned, there is only one real Universe that perpetually continues existing in one real dimension at one real here for one real duration of now once. One real Universe can only have one real condition although that one physical condition must have three aspects. The one real eternal Universe always has differing amounts of matter, space and light in its composition. Matter can move through light, but it cannot move through matter or through space. Space can surround matter, but it cannot surround space or light. Light can fill space, but it cannot penetrate light or matter.

I could be wrong.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

That is your opinion, if the application in fact is true, it will be recognized as "true".

Are you okay ?

Bookmark and Share

Hou Ying Yau wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Hoang,

I agree with what you said in your essay: "The true nature of science is to clarify perhaps strange things,and not to create even more exotic things...". The ideas developed in physics nowadays are mainly based on abstract mathematical formulation. It cannot be understood easliy.

In related to gravitational force, repulsion is not something that has been observed. However, it is only my thought, if the clock is running backward like rewinding a film, the attraction will look like repulsion. It may be the nature of time that only allow us to observe attraction.

I am touched when I entered this contest with a lot of non-professional contributing their ideas like yours. My educational background is also not in physcis. I spent the last 15 years self studying. At the beginning, I found all the absract ideas so difficult to understand. I finally get over some of the hurdles and can alomst get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. The essay Is there really no reality underneath quantum theory outlines one of my ideas. The idea is very simple (without abstract assumption) but I am able to develop the technical mathematical proof to support it. I hope you will find it interesting. I hope one day that non-professional like us can make some major contributions to the community.


Hou Yau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Hou Yau

In fact history has shown: the vast majority of the changes are important are due to those who are considered "unprofessional".

Maybe it's because : those who are the "professional" too believe in what is there, so did not see the irrationality of them.


Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 09:09 GMT
Be very careful when using mathematics, it is actually a "magic wand" but it can not think for you, if you "accidentally" steer the wrong way, then it will "squared" to your consequences.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:17 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 08:53 GMT
Even if you do not do that, you also was the most lovely in the competition.

Bookmark and Share

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear Hoang chao Hai,

Thank you for the thread on my blog: I see that you consider important to read my essay.

I read, some weeks ago, your essay and I vote ever quickly the essay; so that there is not a exchange between authors, and the vote are right (there is not sympathy, or dislike): I must say the truth, I give a little advantage to old FQXi bloggers.

Some consideration on your essay:

(1) I think that the multiverse is pratically realized in the Universe: each quantum path is a real path in the Universe wave function evolution, and the measure cause the collapse of the wave function (I think that the Universe is multiverse until the collapse of the wave function)

(2,3,4) I think that the shrinking-collapse happen ever in the Universe zones; I think that the Dirac sea is the expansion in the Universe (negative curvature in the Big Bang) and the mass particles is the positive curvature; so that some bubbles of different curvature in the Universe can be happen (like a choppy sea) and if happen positive zone on some galaxies we measure dark energy, and in some negative zone we have galaxies contraction



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 08:49 GMT
Many thank Domenico

Sory for a great pity:

Maybe because I'm a "rookie" in FQXi so I did not even have "the author's assessment code" to be able to contribute to the score for you.

I am only wish you successful and good luck.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 02:23 GMT

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:



Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
And a great pity:

Maybe because I'm a "rookie" in FQXi so I did not even have "the author's assessment code" to be able to contribute to the score for you.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT
Pleased to trust in the wisdom of the judges.

"All decisions of the judges are final and the selection of Winners is at the sole and absolute discretion of FQXi."

I really believe those who have given the Topic :

"Which of Our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong?"

Hope we do not lose the faith.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT


First of all, would like to sincerely thank all of the feedback of you.

In addition of the approver, the objections mainly in two ways:

1. You think I got confused between "mass" and "weight".

2. You use the standard model assumptions and arguments are being...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 09:46 GMT
Send comments to :

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
A very interesting problem: THE REAL VALUE OF TOE

Through the consultation process in the community of authors, this is the most interesting thing that I noticed.

When given the theoretical opinions for draft proposals of a TOE, I get a comment that was for me to toss and turn a long time before a response.

It is an idea from an our most beloved author, he raised the issue: Do not you think a "Theory of Everything" would be a bit depressing? What would be left to do?

I was really puzzled and found that: perhaps we have the notion that: if have TOE is we will not have to do anything anymore.

With all the confidence of a man who thinks has found it, I would like to share with you: TOE merely a matter of theory, whether it is completely accurate,but until we can achieve some real results, will also need a process that is not easy to overcome.

For example as follows: TOE can give you a formula for the "immortal", but to actually become "immortal" at least you be must need have the necessary materials and appropriate technology capabilities, not to mention the claim for element in the body of your own body.

That mean the real value of TOE is simply: we do not have to spend more time for "grope" to find out the solutions.

Hope to get a lot more interesting comments from you

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT

Send comments to :

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT

Including the theory of relativity, string theory,quantum theory and the standard model.

1. Relativity: on the view : of course "relatively" is a very vague concept than "absolute", and therefore the assumptions of the theory of Relativity is not specific and detailed than absolute theory.

So Theory of Relativity was do not able to address the requirements set for a fundamental theory of physics, cosmology in particular and science in general.

2. String theory: although have the right idea but the lack of specific measures and also is a set of concepts and assumptions that lack specific and detailed, so it can not afford to make final conclusion for the need to understand our problems.

So,it is do not afford to become a theory of everything.

3. Quantum theory and the standard model: the more reasonable because the fundamental basis of very detailed,but there are errors in the performance measures.

The main reason for both of the above theories were at a standstill is: trying to measure to quantify the "atoms", ie not accept very specific definitions of "atoms" had from before, it's "smallest and can not be divided further".

This has created the opportunity for trouble arises, through the birth of "subatomic", because diversity and there is no limit of the "subatomic" was to lost of the ability to determined for the most fundamental particles of this two assumptions.

4. The Absolutely theory suggests that: the appropriate for a "final conclusion" that is the Causality and arguments of Reductionist.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT

The main reason is due to the way named "Gravity" and the "promiscuity" application (do not look at the specific phenomenon) has created a vague concept and made it difficult to determine the true nature of this force, as well as generate more vague concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy".

The "Gravity" is a concept that we have to accept, rather than a measure to be able to identify specific as " thrust" or "compression".

By absolute principle is: for each result there is only one cause.

So: the general application as gravitational for interactions between the Sun and the planets in the solar system is completely wrong.

Because: the nature of the sun is "break out" force, ie create " thrust", the Earth and other planets in the solar system of course is under "compression down" from the "thrust out" of the Sun.

Therefore, we will be must the definition specific for any individual cases before to use a name to call it.

Namely: instead called "gravity" as at present, we must separate into two called: "thrust to out" of the sun to create "compression to down" for the Earth and the other planets in the solar system.

That is the superiority of the measure "absolute" in how to solve all our problems.

It is very simple, specific and easy to understand, but can not be denied.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT

and ability for the self against criticism or opposition.

The Absolute theory means: Only a general theory for everything - that's the Truth.And if was the Truth is certainly must be Absolute.

Therefore: The true nature of each of one of any things or events always be unique,or with each of one...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 01:17 GMT
The Absolute theory of Hoàngcao Hải is actually a theory capable of explaining the true nature of everything,that is the specified and detailed for the basic foundation of all the problems in Physic as well as other disciplines of Science.

Because true is correct : only a general theory for everything - that would be the truth.

And the truth is certainly be must...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 14:43 GMT
Good afternoon Hai,

The "absolute" TOE is in my humble opinion a wishfull thinking of us, mortal human beings.

Every theory, even yours changes every moment, because your mental horizon is growing every moment.

The TOE of today is already history, and a new one is ready to take over.

You are right when you say that this absolute TOE is "INFINITE", but also infinitely growing and changing in space and time , every moment of it is just a photograph of the past.

The "absolute" EVERYTHING, which is not meant as atheory is Total Simultaneity, an entity which is undescribable by us, who have only five senses and live in a causal deterministic universe.

The same with the "ultimate TRUTH" it is an ideal that mankind will hunt eternally and perhaps only achieves when he is dead, or in the same situation as when he was "unborn".

think free


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Hoang cao Hai replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 04:24 GMT
Uncle de Wilde

It's a point of obsolete and the fact that: is inefficient and always create trouble.

Think free

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT

Dear to all of you

To me: FQXi really is a bright spot in the "dim" and "despair" of theoretical physics today.

The selection of these essays is a separate issue of the jury, the result of the contest will determine the value of their and FQXi.

If you are not successful, probably because we do not fit with the view of the jury.

Do not be sad about that, because "when the night ended, the sun will rise," if we are to Truth, will always have the opportunity to be recognized, when humanity was "fed up" ambiguity, illusion and abstract science background current (even more obscure than the Theology)

Again sincerely thank FQXi was for us to have the nice opportunity to : be comfortable to know each other and express their own opinion.

Many thanks to all of you and FQXi.

Bookmark and Share

Author Hoang cao Hai wrote on Dec. 9, 2012 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear to Moderators FQXi

Along with my genuine thanks,is a sincere comments with desire: FQXi will succeed to become a "firm fulcrum" of the Science.

Although very glad to be involved in the competition, but I was really disappointed about "the exchange by points in the community" - as Andrew Mendelsohn above.

That has created a psychological "doubts" about the ability and the real class of the jury of FQXi, as well as organizational measures and evaluation criteria of FQXi in the contest like this.

Maybe FQXi should leave the assessment and grading, as well as determine the outcome of the contest for the Jury of FQXi it would be better.

The comments and reviews in the "community" as well as "public" should only be used for reference and supplement to the decision of the jury will be more appropriate.

The article reached to "final" should have more one plays against the "opposition" together with the analysis and review of the jury will be more convincing.

If not too upset for you,Moderators can tell an explain more clearly : the purpose of FQXi is to look for "new discoveries and findings" or "new created and compositions"? for me and other authors to choice the response form.

With best wishes and hope FQXi really is a "big event" and not fall into the "deadlock" or "tragic" as the general condition of the current scientific theories.


Bookmark and Share

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.