Thanks for this nice piece of text. I can try to provide an answer to the following:
What I don't understand, however, is why the insistance on trying to prove things that shouldn't even exist, like the Graviton for example? Which honestly in the light of general relativity, to me at least, doesn't make any sense at all.
The three other fundamental interactions are based on gauge theories and thus photons, gluons, W-bosons and Z-bosons emerge (and have been found experimentally). From there, we may be tempted to say that it would be nice that gravity is also based on gauge interactions, and so were gravitons.
However the story is more complicated than this, as you know : gravity and quantum mechanics does not like much each other and there is not any observation of a graviton (this may also be very hard, even impossible, to achieve). However, this could be doable in the framework of various beyond the Standard Model theories (for instance in higher-dimensional frameworks).
We may like it or not, but it is good to explore the possibility. Not doing so would be a problem in my opinion (we need to be pragmatic and try every option). Note that I don't think there is any insistence, at least not much more than for the exploration of any other theory beyond the Standard Model.
Thank you for this explanation. Yes of course, it's always good to explore every option.
Yes, in fact I was reading some article "Is Space Pixelated?" relevant to this, about new collaboration to try and tackle the quantization of gravity with string theory.
Which was what gave me the idea on writing this post. As I saw what they're doing as just another attempt to justify string theory.
But yeah, as you said "We may like it or not, but it is good to explore the possibility".