For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you- but you should realize the gap between what your Wikipedia source says and what you originally asserted. Yes, Wikip

For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you- but you should realize the gap between what your Wikipedia source says and what you originally asserted. Yes, Wikipedia is right that the existence of dark matter isn't proven, and it's also true that there's no proven connection to the Standard Model; it's also true, as I said, that scientists are pretty sure that it does exist (the alternate theories are widely regarded as long shots.) And if it exists, this novel form of matter would need to be fit into the Standard Model somewhere, since that is intended to describe all forms of matter. Incidentally, I also think you're getting your history of science confused; the "cosmological constant" term Einstein used to make relativity consistent with his belief in a static, non-expanding universe was a "hack" (he himself wound up admitting it was unjustified.) But that's entirely unrelated to dark matter. Similar modern theories to the cosmological constant have been termed "dark energy," but the use of the word "dark" in both doesn't imply a real connection- it simply means that they each haven't been directly observed.