Science going wrong (ether) is not a bad thing. In fact, if scientists were not routinely wrong, we would suspect there was something wrong with our scientific method.
Let me challenge your argument more directly. Postulating ether after observing that sound and light have similar properties (wave behaviour) is not stupid. It is the logical thing to do. It was also a hypothesis. Scientists did well-designed experiments and eventually realized that light does not a need a medium to travel. The scientific process correctly identified falsehood. Outcome: we are clear on which properties light and sound share (wave equation) and which they don't (medium or lack thereof)
I haven't read the paper, but let me make a statement about metamaterial wormholes. Metamaterial experiments in the lab might be able to simulate a type of wormholes. If they can then we know that within another theory that shares enough math with EM will also have wormholes of that type. The question then is if GR has and EM share enough of that mathematical structure. If they do then these types of wormholes will also exist in GR. This is a different way of investigating GR wormholes then directly looking at the theory of GR. The differences between EM theory and GR might make it easier to discover wormholes in the former than in the latter.
> The question then is if GR has and EM share enough of that mathematical structure.
And how do we answer that question, other than directly looking at GR theory? Moreover, even if we do find EM evidence in favor of wormholes, how do we know quantum gravity doesn't prevent their formation?
Yes. We will have to directly look at GR to verify. But as I said before, it might be easier to do the investigation first with EM and then compare to GR rather than look at GR directly.
We don't know what quantum gravity says. The job of the theorist to form self-consistent theories and find the strongest predictions of these theories. When we get experimental data we will find out which theories are falsified.
Let me challenge your argument more directly. Postulating ether after observing that sound and light have similar properties (wave behaviour) is not stupid. It is the logical thing to do. It was also a hypothesis. Scientists did well-designed experiments and eventually realized that light does not a need a medium to travel. The scientific process correctly identified falsehood. Outcome: we are clear on which properties light and sound share (wave equation) and which they don't (medium or lack thereof)
I haven't read the paper, but let me make a statement about metamaterial wormholes. Metamaterial experiments in the lab might be able to simulate a type of wormholes. If they can then we know that within another theory that shares enough math with EM will also have wormholes of that type. The question then is if GR has and EM share enough of that mathematical structure. If they do then these types of wormholes will also exist in GR. This is a different way of investigating GR wormholes then directly looking at the theory of GR. The differences between EM theory and GR might make it easier to discover wormholes in the former than in the latter.
TLDR; Let scientists get creative.