If you want a simple place holder for merging GR and QM it should not be called Quantum Gravity because that description is already in use and the meaning isn't general it is very specific indeed with QM effects being dominant. Use something like "total theory of gravity" or some more general phrase that isn't currently in use if you want a place holder.
The way I see it is that we have a phrase which is widely understood. If you can come up with some new designation for that theory, whatever it may be, that will be widely accepted and understood then so be it. But I figure that what it has been called for many years now is what it will be called for many more years. Your campaign is somewhat like my campaign to replace the habit of defining C as the speed of light with a different definition. See my sig for my take on that. But I don't really expect to change how it is defined. I don't see any future in your insisting that we not call Quantum Gravity what it is almost universally called.
As I have said, the final theory may be something completely different, but it will have elements of both GR and QM in it. So there isn't any good reason not to use the phrase Quantum Gravity as a placeholder.
I am somewhat of a QM zealot according to many and even for me you are going a step to far.
I noticed that before, which is what brought on my earlier comment about your not liking GR. You seem to think that GR is not quite as good as QM, and I have been trying to point out that is just as valid as QM.
Bill Gill
