Renate Loll on the Quantum Origins of Space and Time

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. she's so much better than any of the male lecturers on this subject
2. I hope this earth is soon sucked into a blsck hole.Game-Over.
3. Why do you do physics ?We like to build more powerfully weapons like the LEXXPlanetenzertrümmerer.
4. Another YouTube video with audio too low to listen too, why would you post something and not check the audio, and if it's low fix it?....
5. Fantastic. Thank you.
6. imagine her suprise when she realize that earth is flat...
7. Total absolute crap in hope of getting grant money. Fuck these stupifd who keep stumbling on their own words and could never watch their own presentation :(
8. After 10 years of working on quantum gravity it is time, Renate Loll, to justify your compensation for coming up with a "tool" which is basically a modern version of Conway's "game of life", that is, cellular automata rules mapped onto fractal geometries. So, we will test your basic knowledge of quantum theory first, with the following question:
   
   Using quantum methods, develop the probability of a human being pronouncing words that begin with the letters "th" which are verbally pronounced replacing the letters, "th" with the letter, "z". You may consider example words such as "this" being pronounced as "zis" or "the" being pronounced as "zee", or "theory" being pronounced as, "zeery" or "that" being pronounced as "zat".
9. I concur with what she's saying .
10. Loll
11. Renate Loll: Wormhole killer! The thing with QFT is that the more simply it is explained, the more bizarre it seems. I'm glad there are people like Renate who are at the cutting edge and who are more than happy to share their progress publicly. Shite: her English is better than most Americans'. Humans are amazing. Here's an idea: a beer mug made in Albert's likeness: the Ein stein.
12. at 11:20 uugh? Shouldnt two stationary observers agree on simultaneity of course accounting for light travel times or using other sychronisation methods. Maybe Renate is oversimplifying for laymen? it is relatively moving observers who really cant agree on simultaneity and hence time dilation etc .. special relativity
13. The Professor's frumpy bra-less attire says a lot to me about Quantum Gravity ..........I think I get it now...........
14. So whatever she is saying is there anything new for all these people listening her?? It is not just another lesson as if she was talking to students in the school?? Did she discovered anything what people do not know?? I am talking only about all those professionals who are in this subject. But she did get some money for sure and that is all about MONEY sweet MONEY People will do any bull-crap for money.
15. i would say, the fact that GR results in case of weird wormholes should be considered as a strong contradiction to this theory and as a strong evidence of rejecting this weird idea of space-time curvature. I mean, have we all lost our minds people? How could things like space and time which has NO PHYSICAL existence be curved? How can we ignore the fact that space-time be more real than the planets or stars that create the fields?
16. An object moves along a "same" straight line in euclidean space whether its traveling "fast or slow". So if gravity really is represented by straight lines in curved non-euclidean space, then so far as matter is concerned it should have the same properties as any straight line, under any other circumstance. But it doesnt. A body will trace "different" lines through a gravitational field depending on whether its traveling "fast of slow".
    
    More like if gravity is a force acting on an object, rather than curved space non-force. The reason being, the force acting on the body is a constant over a set duration of time, then it allows a bodies inertia to draw different lines depending on if the body is moving fast of slow.
    
    A straight line should always have the same properties. If it doesn't and adds up like a force, then its a force.
17. Thank you very much YouTube for allowing me to post.
18. (?+?=?) (?-?=?) = (1+1=3)
19. This is not experimentally falsifiable. It is not science, but is instead metaphysics, and is a complete waste of time for anyone interested in actual science.
20. 1:00:20 no Wormholes.