I mean, it doesn’t have to relate to a particle. Lambda is also associated with a property of space itself.

The point with the LHC is, that it is very hard to find something, that you are not actively looking for. You have to at least have a certain understanding of the decay channels of the proposed particle to be able to scan the data for it. It’s the same problem they have for discovering dark matter particles.

Oh with mainstream science I meant the journalism, probably bad wording.

Yeah, but somehow mainstream science gaslit everyone into thinking, that the current model is definitely right, even though there are relevant observations, that are not explained by it. But I guess we just need a new even bigger particle accelerator and then we will definitely find dark matter particles!

It is not very reliable to use a component to build a model that has “no support from observations”.

But it has support from observations? It’s an alternative explanation for the red shifts we observe from far away sources.

ΛCDM has also problems. For example that two different methods of calculating the Hubble constant do not agree, or that the James Webb telescope found galaxies, that are too old. The latter was the motivation for the paper and gives an explanation for it, contrary to current models.

Yeah, it is not generally a good idea to just throw in more components, like here a scalar.

Well, guess what the Λ in ΛCDM is? They just put it in there to be able to fit the theory to the observation. And it’s absurd to say, that they would’ve found that in the LHC, when they also did not find dark matter particles, even though they are actively looking for those.

Does it still explain galaxy rotations? What about other cosmological data, like equation of state parameter and such?

They are aware of this and mention it already in the abstract:

It remains to be seen if the new model is consistent with the CMB power spectrum, the Big Bang nucleosynthesis of light elements, and other critical observations.

It’s quite common for research groups to do this, because their work is quite complex and takes time. They proved that their approach might have some merit and now other groups can help them going forward with it.

As a scientist, it is tremendously important for us, that people trust our science. We saw, what happens, if enough neglect science with Covid and now climate change. Scientists like her, who stray from their area of expertise and report false facts, just damage our reputation. I mean, you seem to have a pretty bad opinion of scientists.
Of course people can make mistakes. That’s actually a fundamental principle of science to be wrong a lot. It’s how you handle these mistakes, that matters. Adapt your views to the new information, do not stick to wrong facts, because you don’t like to admit, that you were wrong.
The problem with people like her is, that they gain trust by making videos about topics, where they are very knowledgeable. Then they use this trust for other content and they do not put any disclaimer about that in it. So people who watch it and are not knowledgeable in the topic of the video think, that they will get the same quality. But they don’t. We have enough misinformation swirling around, we don’t need more published by reputable persons.
You write yourself, that she describes stuff in a way, that you can understand it. But how do you judge, if she explains a topic correctly according to the current state of science, if you have no clue about it yourself? She could just bullshit you on every video without you knowing.

Her video on nuclear reactors was awful. She just neglected facts, that didn’t fit her narrative.

We need a time period of inflation to explain our very homogeneous universe. Just read up on the wiki page about the inflationary epoch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)