It's fun to speculate, but it's worth pointing out that science progresses via actual work.
If you know how to build a machine that senses more than 4 dimensions, please build it and run some experiments! If you can't, then recognize the limitations of critique. Anyone can sit back and say "hey, what if we're doing things wrong?" Scientists already spend most of their time in this area of thinking.
The operative question isn't "what use are our limited experiments?" Scientists know their experiments are limited. The real question is, "how, specifically, can we do new experiments?"
Or for theoreticians, it's not "is our model incorrect?" Scientists know the theories aren't correct... not totally correct, anyway. The real question for a theoretician is, "what new model can I propose that matches all known evidence, and also opens the door for new understanding?"
I guess I was just thinking out loud, but then I did read the article and have read many other like it over the last 30+ years.
I can see it must be fun to speculate, but also seemingly profitable for some of these guys too, eh? I wonder how much a "theoretical physicist" gets paid, anyways?
If you know how to build a machine that senses more than 4 dimensions, please build it and run some experiments! If you can't, then recognize the limitations of critique. Anyone can sit back and say "hey, what if we're doing things wrong?" Scientists already spend most of their time in this area of thinking.
The operative question isn't "what use are our limited experiments?" Scientists know their experiments are limited. The real question is, "how, specifically, can we do new experiments?"
Or for theoreticians, it's not "is our model incorrect?" Scientists know the theories aren't correct... not totally correct, anyway. The real question for a theoretician is, "what new model can I propose that matches all known evidence, and also opens the door for new understanding?"