Of course there is lots of new speculative ideas being produced, but it's really difficult to get anything confirmed.
Also, "modern physics" is a term of art, vs "classical physics".
Likewise, our 1/r^2 understanding of forces goes to infinity as distance goes to zero, but we currently can't resolve that problem with error bars for the nucleus of an atom, where Heisenberg tells us any two protons can sometimes appear closer to each other than the "radius" of the nucleus.
You can't make Schottky diodes using Maxwell and error bars.
That is the entire problem: the classical models weren't merely inaccurate; they predicted completely absurd (and provably wrong) results at extreme scales.
There is a lot of hard math and fundamental physical ideas that pop out when we apply quantum mechanics to fields, but it's still QM.
The work of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli from 1925-28 or so is absolutely not our date.
And if you try to present your theory as foundational from the outset — like S. Wolfram does — you’ll be laughed at, much like he is.
The problem for theoretical physics now is that all experiments from the LHC and so on are consistent with the standard model. So there are no recalcitrant observations that can guide new theory formation. The regime where we might get new physics, where gravity and QM are both significant, is so far experimentally inaccessible, though see here for a nice talk by Carlo Rovelli on one such experiment that might be plausible in the coming years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgieRctZ4dE
The problem with Wolfram/Gorrard's model is that it doesn't relate to any experiments. As far as I know the most that can be said for it is that Gorrard showed that in some limit the model is able to replicate some features of GR and QM, so that by definition doesn't go beyond the predictions of GR nor QM.
That's because quantum gravity regime is so far experimentally inaccessible?
Dark matter is a problem from cosmology and astronomy, that maybe has a solution in an extension to the standard model. Maybe it hasn't and that solution will come from elsewhere, maybe there is a totally cosmological explanation after all. In all cases, the dark matter problem is not a contradiction to the standard model in our current experiments. If there were a particle-physics explanation to dark matter, it would be a sufficiently small alteration to the standard model that our current experiments couldn't tell the difference, to within experimental error. That's how confirmation and new models in physics work.
The standard model is so descriptive and accurate, there is just no room for extensions which predict new physics but are still consistent with existing data.
The page you link to is essentially a big list of links. Useless.
I am immediately suspicious of anyone who generates buzzwords to describe their theory. Heck, he even registered "hydrino" as a trademarked term.
I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, wears feathers and swims all day in a lake.
I suspect in the end it will turn out to neither be exotic new particles nor modifications to gravity, but rather that there is something fundamental about large scale structure formation in the universe that we just do not understand at the present.