[iand]

You wrote "What if there's no such a thing as <something we have studied and understood in detail for decades> and we've been observing interactions with <something we hypothesise might exist but we know next to nothing about> all along?"

Why did you jump to the conclusion that the well understood thing should be replaced by the new and unknown thing?

[PepeGomez]

It doesn't seem to me like a big leap of logic to go from something being shown to be influenced by a so far unknown particle and the same thing being the result of interactions with this particle.