Astronomy

That article has a number of problems.

The force of gravity is weak. And not just a little bit weak. It’s so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—that it’s almost impossible to provide analogies.

Gravity isn't a force. It's the curvature of spacetime, the bending itself. You can't compare it to the three other forces.

We can’t see the bulk, touch the bulk, experience the bulk, or otherwise interact with the bulk because our entire universe—all the particles and forces of nature—are restricted to life on the brane.

That means it isn't falsifiable. It's same as believing in god - it's faith and not a scientific theory. Also the article says:

Physicists just need some way to pierce the veil of the brane and peer into the realm of the bulk.

How should physicists do that when by definition a bulk can't be detected? In the later parts it is claimed that the bulk-brane-interactions somehow influences gravity and that this influence could be detected. I call bullshit.

If our running knowledge of gravity is mistaken

We know that our understanding of gravity is flawed because we can't unify it with the theory of quantum mechanics. But there must be a link between them.

In 2019, the LIGO detector (...) measured gravitational waves emanating from the merger of a black hole with … something else. The black hole had a mass of around 23 solar masses. Its companion had a mass of only 2.6 solar masses. That’s far too small to be a black hole … but also a little too big to be a neutron star.

Objects with a mass above 2.5 solar masses are likely light weight black holes. Source

The whole article consists only of a lot of 'could be', nothing tangible and bullshit.