But there are so many potential assumptions baked into these theories that it's hard to believe when they claim, "look, Einstein's field equations."
> This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to canonically quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air.
This seems like an odd sentence - what about phonons?
In any case, I would say this is a somewhat bold description of what we know about gravity.
But, that aside, the idea that gravity is spacetime is really just the theory of general relativity and that is clearly not the final word on the subject. Other approaches to gravity may admit alternative ontologies.
Again, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. Just saying that you are kind of oversimplifying an open scientific question.
I myself have many 'unproven' things about Physics, that I believe, with a high degree of probability (near certainty). Dig thru my past posts for lots of them. For example, I believe Minkowski Space is indeed itself emergent. I think our entire universe exists on the "surface" of a 3D Event Horizon (manifold). I don't believe in the Big Bang, because our reality 'formed' not from a singularity (exploding out), but like a Black Hole (falling in). So I'm open to lots of ideas, but just pointing out the what we currently know as General Relativity, isn't even that complex, and is just about a shape (curvature/tensor) at every point in spacetime. It's all we've "proven".
I agree.
> and that the global and exquisitly weak force of gravity emerges from that theory as a sort of accounting error.
Nah, it's probably just another weird family of bosons, just like the other forces.
From the article:
> Entropic gravity is very much a minority view. But it’s one that won’t die, and even detractors are loath to dismiss it altogether.