This is certainly not the case, as this paper presents two potential effects from higher dimensional gravity waves and proposes methods to detect them.
Namely, we would need an equivalent to LIGO that features detection arms in all three axes rather than just X and Z. The second predicted effect requires a GWave detector that is several orders of magnitude more sensitive than LIGO.
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.
Aside: The authors of this article seem to have submitted a revised version a couple of weeks ago; sometimes (but not always) that coincides with either journal submission or responding to reviewer comments. There's no indication here yet of what its current stage in the peer review process is.
Edit: I see from later comments here that the target of this link may have been changed to arXiv.org after its original submission. If the earlier link was paywalled as someone said, that suggests that this result has been formally published somewhere. (I'm a little surprised that the authors didn't note that on the arXiv page once it happened.) So maybe the earlier context made the purely theoretical nature of the paper less clear.
Received 8 May 2017
Accepted 13 June 2017
Published 23 June 2017
In this cases, this is the proposed title to the research article in the peer review journal. (Is this accepted yet?) So this is not a problem of a bad clickbait journalism.
My guess is that it's a good title for the people in the area, because they have enough context of the current research state to guess that it's a theoretical result and not an experimental result (and in case of doubt they can RTFA). So I suspect it's not malice (neither stupidity).
I have no degree in physics and I find the authors make a decent job giving several summaries (abstract, introduction, description of the work) that make clear that they propose hypotheticals that could be observed, not actual observerations.
> We discuss whether these two effects could be observed.
What "reporting"? This is a science paper -- and its actual title.
You couldn't add 1 axis of another detector as a 3rd leg but having 3 measurements on 3 planes from 3 pairs of beams due to their positions on earth should. Each stations 2 axis measure 1 plane, and you build the 3 plane from the positions on the earths surface.
Wouldn't the relative velocities of the earths spin, orbit and the solar systems velocity from the gravity wave origin all make the above measurements... difficult. Or all things considered, the angular tiny velocity from the origin makes that irrelevant.
Physics is hard.