Don't be bothered by trying to make theoretical physics a reality. Don't try to make sense of it. It can't be done.
We are pretty sure that we are confident about the theories of Newton, and have a clear understanding of the terms and definitions regarding Newtonian physics. We are also fairly certain about the terms and definitions involving the atom - the electron, proton, and neutron - and even the positron - because we can now 'see' individual atoms. The parts of the atom, we have sufficient evidence for, and can most assuredly state that we understand the nature of these particles. We use this knowledge - the terms and definitions - in our day-to-day activities.
A civil engineer, for instance, will use these terms and equations that are based on what we know pragmatically and experientially about the physical nature of the world around us, the Newtonian stuff, to build bridges and such. That bridge, after all, has to be built to withstand real world forces, not theoretical musings.
Pretty much everything we know about physics past this is speculative, and only exists in mathematical formulas and equations. These equations are the best guesses of the majority of knowledgeable theorists, meant to explain things we really can not experience directly, but can only surmise through their effects on other things. But as far as the average science fiction reader is concerned, they are as nebulous as the ether.
The thing is, few of these speculative terms and definitions are completely accepted as having the same meaning by all faculties of physics. Each discipline involved with the broad term 'physics' has their own nomenclature. For instance, a magnetic field to an electrician has a very different connotation that a 'field' in quantum mechanics. In electrical terms, a magnetic filed involves 'lines of force', definitely measurable using a concept of 'flux'. No need for 'bosons' at all, in order to calculate inductance and figure out how much force that motor will produce. In fact, spread some iron filings and one can 'see; this field.
A quantum physicist, on the other hand, sees a 'field' as something very different. Get into the world of theoretical physics, it becomes a hodge-podge. It is like nailing jelly to a tree. Just when one person thinks they understand what is going on, someone else comes along and says 'it is not that way at all'. One person looks at the data and sees one thing, another looks at the same data and sees another. Everything is just a numerical value, not a real 'thing'.
A boson is just a theoretical concept to explain a blip on a graph of repeated measurements of some form of energy emission from some repeated experiment. A field is just a theoretical explanation of why that blip is there. The blip on the graph is real, it is replicable and repeatable. But what it is, and what it represents, are just best guesses. The term 'boson' and 'field' are basically just placeholder terms, until we flesh out our knowledge further and better understand what is causing that blip.
The bottom line is that most sci-fi readers do not care about the real 'terms and definitions' of advanced theoretical physics. Once past Newton et all, there ARE no concrete definitions. They are interested in the story. Just make sure you are internally consistent and coherent within your plot, and concentrate on telling a good story.
But I would advise you to scrap that multi-dimensional stuff. It's best-before date, methinks, has expired long ago. 'Multi-dimensional' is bafflegab for 'having an exponent in the equation bigger than 3'. Stick to your own 'fields of existence'. Not 'fabric' or 'planes', as those are just too two dimensional and cone with too much baggage today. Even 'fields' comes with baggage. 'Realm' used to be a good one, but now the term is associated with fantasy and mythology. 'Ether' was also a popular term, but has gone out of fashion. Make up your own term. Niven was very good at it. Something like 'divergent continuum spectrum'.
And use an analogy to explain it.
For instance, humans live in the world of visible light, and that is how we perceive reality. We 'see' and 'experience' the world through a limited EM spectrum. Imagine a being that lives in a world where they have organs that can perceive UHF (a different spectrum) the way we perceive light, and that forms their reality. Or a being that lives in a world where they have 'organs' that can perceive Higgs bosons (a continuum of bosons) as 'real' things, the way we see light. Or a being that 'sees' gravity waves, and has the ability to 'see' gravitational variants the way we see intensities of light. Just change the spectrum of what they can perceive, not the dimension.