The analogy between æther and graviton has some appeal. Photons, W and Z are more or less directly detectable. There is no hope of doing that with graviton. Hence, speaking about graviton brings probably no good: such language has no direct correspondence to observed reality and there is a danger that it can enforce some incorrect intuitions. As far as it goes, I agree. But note also that neither gluons are directly observed.
What I disagree is that the new theories are “graviton-based”. They are rather “gravitational-field-based”. The gravitational field is an observed entity. For other three forces, a field is associated to particles (well, W and Z and gluon fields are also not directly observed, but at least they are very useful concepts for making theoretical predictions, field theory is more successful than once popular analytic S-matrix theory which worked without the idea of fields). So, we may reasonably assume that the gravitational field also behaves like particles in quantum regime. Maybe it is not the case, but the particle-like behaviour isn’t the cornerstone of quantum gravity.
Also, why do you think that somebody has to be largely outside the academic system to solve the quantum gravity puzzle? Are there, in your opinion, some specific biases widespread in academia blocking the abilities to find a new successful theory?
The analogy between æther and graviton has some appeal. Photons, W and Z are more or less directly detectable. There is no hope of doing that with graviton. Hence, speaking about graviton brings probably no good: such language has no direct correspondence to observed reality and there is a danger that it can enforce some incorrect intuitions. As far as it goes, I agree. But note also that neither gluons are directly observed.
What I disagree is that the new theories are “graviton-based”. They are rather “gravitational-field-based”. The gravitational field is an observed entity. For other three forces, a field is associated to particles (well, W and Z and gluon fields are also not directly observed, but at least they are very useful concepts for making theoretical predictions, field theory is more successful than once popular analytic S-matrix theory which worked without the idea of fields). So, we may reasonably assume that the gravitational field also behaves like particles in quantum regime. Maybe it is not the case, but the particle-like behaviour isn’t the cornerstone of quantum gravity.
Also, why do you think that somebody has to be largely outside the academic system to solve the quantum gravity puzzle? Are there, in your opinion, some specific biases widespread in academia blocking the abilities to find a new successful theory?