> I originally thought this paper presented evidence for extra dimensions discovered in gravitational wave readings.
And you've perfectly illustrated the current problem with science reporting. It's hard to keep people interested in ongoing discovery when 1) the link doesn't accurately represent the paper's thesis, and 2) the paper is so obtuse as to require a specialized degree to understand.
Whatever your qualifications, your comment provided the context to understand what was being asserted. You are the sort of person who should be writing articles on scientific papers.
And you've perfectly illustrated the current problem with science reporting. It's hard to keep people interested in ongoing discovery when 1) the link doesn't accurately represent the paper's thesis, and 2) the paper is so obtuse as to require a specialized degree to understand.
Whatever your qualifications, your comment provided the context to understand what was being asserted. You are the sort of person who should be writing articles on scientific papers.