I see your tongue is still firmly in cheek here, as a brief Google Scholar search would reveal there are very few experiments available to observe quantum gravi

I see your tongue is still firmly in cheek here, as a brief Google Scholar search would reveal there are very few experiments available to observe quantum gravity and as far as I can tell, few studies of mathematics ever bother considering the experimental observations that other scientists or engineers would require. In fact, another researcher wrote the following article in 2017 in plain language: https://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-is-more-experiments https://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-... therefore what you're saying is roughly true if not exactly true? ;-) From that 2017 article: > You already know we haven’t found anything yet—otherwise you’d have heard of it. But even null results are valuable guides for theory development. They teach us that some ideas—for example, that spacetime might be a regular lattice—are simply incompatible with observations. I would suggest that publishing and peer review requires an audience, therefore ... err, by publishing this I am actually peer-reviewing your work?! Drat! That makes me 0/2 then! To conclude my peer-review, I would like to see more details for reproduction, merely stating that you've performed experiments without providing the necessary observational data and steps to reproduce highlights the lack of originality in the paper you're proposing and therefore I would decline to publish. ;-)