[Kryptid]

At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?. 

They can. We've found planetary systems with gaseous planets that are even closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter

[pasala]

At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?.

They can. We've found planetary systems with gaseous planets that are even closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter

"Hot Jupiters are a class of gas giant exoplanets that are inferred to be physically similar to Jupiter but that have very short orbital periods (P < 10 days).[1] The close proximity to their stars and high surface-atmosphere temperatures resulted in their informal name "hot Jupiters".[2]".

That is true and it happens at the time of formation of solar system.  But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others. 

The thing is that, space is not empty.  As per General relativity, mass curves the space time around it.  We all accept it.  Basic question is what is being curved.  Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place. 

Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.

[Colin2B]

At present we are of the opinion that space is empty. 

Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim.

It is not clear what is being curved. 

It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.
We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime.

Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.

This statement doesn’t make any sense. Mass is not independent of the energy stored within it, neither is the energy that can be released independent of the mass. E=mc2.

[pasala]

At present we are of the opinion that space is empty.  Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim

It is not clear what is being curved.
It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.
We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime.

Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.

This statement doesn’t make any sense. Mass is not independent of the energy stored within it, neither is the energy that can be released independent of the mass. E=mc2.

Thank you.  I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.  Basic question is how to find out this aether.  As per Classical view of light is that it is a disturbance in space.

It is the electrons that are released into space are causing EMR or light or in fact a disturbance.  It is creating vibrations in the space.  What I would like to say that, electrons released by us are charging particles in the space.   

It is the space fabric that is being curved or distorted in space.  I did not said anything about measurement of distance.

Then, space fabric is nothing but aether only.

Any discussion gives an opportunity to learn

[alancalverd]

I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.

It is, by definition.

Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.

[Kryptid]

But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others.

Any theory you come up with is going to need to be applicable to other planetary systems as well.

Basic question is what is being curved.

If space-time is curved then what is being curved is space-time. I mean it's right there in the description.

Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place.

I don't know what it would mean to "curve" energy, but your assertion is still refuted by the existence of hot Jupiters.

Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.

If Mercury formed as far out as Neptune in the Solar System, its physical properties would likely be far different by the fact that temperatures out there are far lower. That means it would have a much higher ice content (ice and water boil away where Mercury is now).

I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.

How are you defining your aether?

[Colin2B]

I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.

It is, by definition.

Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.

Space around me is filled with lots of stuff. The boss calls it clutter.

You are of course correct, I was trying to explain to Pasala on his own terms. Failed again 

I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.  Basic question is how to find out this aether.  As per Classical view of light is that it is a disturbance in space.

The classical view is not that light is a disturbance in space.
As @Kryptid says, how do you define your aether, also how do you plan to detect it? There have been many attempts to detect an aether and all have failed. The main problem is that suggesting a medium in which light propagates usually results in light behaving in ways that experiment shows it doesn’t.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is the electrons that are released into space are causing EMR or light or in fact a disturbance.  It is creating vibrations in the space.  What I would like to say that, electrons released by us are charging particles in the space. 

In radio antenna, no electron needs to be released into space to generate radio wave.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.

It is, by definition.

Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.

Empty space is empty.
Space filled with electromagnetic radiation isn't empty. It contains something instead of nothing, even if it's massless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here are the assumptions used:

Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

The assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.

The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.

Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair

The outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half

If we assume that there's no speed limit for physical interaction, then the results were not weird.

If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.

If we assume that there's supersymmetry or we accept superdeterminism, the measurements won't be actually random nor independent, then the results were not weird either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If we assume that there's no speed limit for physical interaction, then the results were not weird.

If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.

If we assume that there's supersymmetry or we accept superdeterminism, the measurements won't be actually random nor independent, then the results were not weird either.

Instead of rejecting one of these assumptions, mainstream physicists just put ambiguity to the first assumption. They just declare that there's instantaneous physical interaction through entanglement, but somehow it doesn't violate special theory of relativity which put speed limit for physical interaction. It's no wonder that therefore they claim that nobody understand quantum mechanics.

Someone even goes further to declare that the universe is not real.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.

Somehow I rarely see someone expressing doubt about photon model for light, even among dissident scientists and cranks.
Here's an excerpt from a documentary video allegedly prove beyond doubt that light consists of particles called photons.

[alancalverd]

Drivel. When you "observe" the photon passing through a slit, you must have extracted some energy from it. Problem is that you can't extract "some" from a quantum. So if anything appears downstream of the slit, it isn't the original photon.

It's the usual misrepresentation of "observe" that folk use to make life appear mysterious. In the mesoscopic world we observe things by bouncing photons or acoustic waves off them, trusting that the energy and momentum imparted by doing so is negligible on the scale of the object or process we are observing. But when the object of interest is a photon, electron , or other microscopic phenomenon, any such interaction is necessarily commensurate with the phenomenon itself and therefore must significantly influence it.

In the case of the double slit, the word isn't "observe" but "destroy".

And the experiment doesn't demonstrate that photons are particles: if you don't destroy it, the interference pattern cannot be described by a particle model. If you fire a machine gun, or pour sand, through a shield with two slits, you get two lines of hits on your target.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Using LED as single photon avalanche detector.

The basics of single photon avalanche diodes.

The experiments shown increase in frequency of spike in the oscilloscope when the voltage bias is increased. Increasing temperature also increases the rate of spike.  They undermine the interpretation that the spikes represent a single photon hitting the detector.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Drivel. When you "observe" the photon passing through a slit, you must have extracted some energy from it. Problem is that you can't extract "some" from a quantum. So if anything appears downstream of the slit, it isn't the original photon.

The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.

Double slit experiment is taught in schools to be the simplest case of interference of light. Interference pattern formed in single slit experiment is analyzed as a more complex case. That's when I started to suspect that something was not right, and motivated me to make videos investigating diffraction of light.

The light and dark spots on the screen are usually thought to be produced by interference of light waves passing through the slits. It's often visualized using interference of water surface wave as analogy. But this analogy is misleading, just like rope wave and fence analogy to explain polarization of light. Light has different mechanism than waves in water surface and rope.

My experiments suggest that the interfering light waves come from the edges of the apparatus,  not the slits themselves (spaces between opaque obstacles). It's shown that interference pattern bends when the slit apparatus is tilted vertically, making the trajectory of light looks like surface of a cone. This phenomenon also appears in single edge diffraction, which should be recognized as the simplest case of diffraction.

Single slit diffraction and interference should be treated as double edge diffraction, just like a thin wire. Don't treat it as interference of infinitely many point sources of space between the edges of the slit. Double slit experiment should be treated as quadruple edge diffraction, just like double wire.

Non-diffractive slit can be built using total internal reflection, which shows no interference pattern. Combining a normal edge and a non-diffractive edge, we can produce a half interference pattern.

Let's see how long mainstream physics community can manage to ignore those experimental results.

[alancalverd]

I don't know of any "confusion" about the DSE except in the writings of the woo-woo brigade who don't understand the meaning of "observe" in physics.

Single edge diffraction is easily demonstrated, particularly at low frequencies, but does not produce an interference pattern as there is no second wavefront to interfere. 

[Origin]

The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.

Your opinion of your abilities and knowledge is WAY out of whack!  You demonstrate over and over that you understand very little physics.  Your posts are only interesting when others on this site add some real science as they refute your misunderstandings.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.

Your opinion of your abilities and knowledge is WAY out of whack!  You demonstrate over and over that you understand very little physics.  Your posts are only interesting when others on this site add some real science as they refute your misunderstandings.

What's your understanding about diffraction and interference of light? Let's start with the simplest case of diffraction.
What causes the diffracted light in a vertically tilted single edge diffraction to produce curved pattern?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't know of any "confusion" about the DSE except in the writings of the woo-woo brigade who don't understand the meaning of "observe" in physics.

Single edge diffraction is easily demonstrated, particularly at low frequencies, but does not produce an interference pattern as there is no second wavefront to interfere. 

Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.

Single edge diffraction is also easily demonstrated in visible light spectrum, which is usually considered as high frequency electromagnetic wave.

[Origin]

Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.

Physicists are just pretending to understand physics?  You're a funny guy...