Complete absence of sources. Deceiving sentences about "law of nature been broken". The explanations provided are not very clear.

The article is clear, despite quite poor in referencing sources. However, I believe some important concerns and mistakes have to be commented upon:

-I find deceiving and sensationalistic the concept of "Broken laws of physics". As correctly stated some lines after the introductory paragraph, the meaning attached to the word "law of physics" is not univocally agreed upon: if regarded as a mathematical description of natural phenomena encompassing all previous experiments and observations validating it, then a "law" of physics is dismissed once new observations disprove it, and we need to look for a better description of the world. It is not the natural phenomenon that "breaks down".

- I strongly disagree with the statement "Indeed, almost every theory of physics is basically a retelling of momentum of conversation but in different applications." (both grammatically and conceptually)

-We DO NOT (as of July 2024) understand the nature of dark matter or dark energy.