In a new arXiv paper entitled “What are we missing in our search for quantum gravity?,” Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics summarizes various approaches to a theory of quantum gravity, lamenting that
Despite enormous effort from thousands of dedicated researchers over a century, the search for the quantum theory of gravity has not yet arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.
At the end of the paper he seems to give up on all of the current approaches.
In light of these reﬂections we might consider novel strategies for searching for quantum gravity. One is to stop asking for a speciﬁc model of quantum spacetime but, instead, to search for general principles which might constrain the choice of models to investigate. That is, following Einstein, we seek a principle theory, rather than a constitutive theory.
Wrong, Lee! What you are missing is precisely a “specific model of quantum spacetime.” I’ve been saying this for three years on this blog, starting here. If you had that model, which, by the way, is readily available, being the main subject of this blog, it would be obvious that trying to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity is impossible, as I explained here. Your fundamental problem is that you don’t know that spacetime is a quantum field, and that gravity and the other forces arise from quantum mechanical interactions among the quanta of spacetime, which I call points. I’ve submitted papers on this subject to journals (rejected) and I’ve made it known to prominent physicists (ignored).
So good luck on your road to quantum gravity, but watch out for a couple of stumbling blocks. The answers you’re looking for don’t fit the current paradigm, which you would probably insist is the only paradigm. Although you can do the physics without it, for a full understanding of points and their origin, you have to accept that consciousness is fundamental, which is anathema to most scientists. Just sayin’.