Laughablestuff

Hey, I just want to point out, the most forward theories on dimensions actually explore the likelihood vs non likelihood of them existing. Regardless of what the people themselves say or write in Autobiographies and such, the math those theories use, we can't disprove and thus call theories, actually still doesn't specify that other dimensions do or do not exist. Only that it is a possibility until we a. Figure out why they can't exist B. Prove they do exist with observable evidence. I apologize but it does not seem correct to say everything we know says dimensions beyond ours exist

We can't even prove what gravity is....

Enter quantum physics. Classical physics can't figure that one out. Its not likely to happen, possibly even in a lifetime. Personally, I can't throw the math down, but one must always explore all possibilities. Like one person posted, it could b a edge stand on toss 1. And also 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and so forth. What gets calculated at that point is the deviation of the likelihood. I think they use sigmas to explore that stuff. Like the higgs boson was thrown around with the term sigma 5 or whatever, when regular people wouldn't even know what that means. Even further, they gave the wrong number for what it represents from Some sources, but that's beside the point. The equation is definitely already out there and solvable. I'm lazy tho

In quantum physics, if we can't prove gravitons exist. We can use ever more provable quantum field theory, to almost explain how and why our molecules react relatively to an extremely large mass.

I want to start with Schrödinger personally. We have reason to believe that on the subatomic level, in the absence of a conscious observer, all possibilities occur with the actual one being what is aligned when the situation is observed. Quantum entanglement I think? But in metallurgy , there's info on subatomically removing the lattice bonds In Certain metals, to induce a liquid state at room temp. I can try to find it again if need, but with that idea, couldn't we knock around the "lattice bonds" of unobserved confined events?