As you (Professor Matt Strassler) have showed that the mass of [(u, u, d), the ID of a proton] accounts for only 5% of proton’s mass. That is, the 95% of proton’s mass is “dark”, not clearly identified by its ID. Linguistically, there is a “dark mass” for proton.
The Planck data should be taken as a “fact”, that is, 95% of the mass (energy) of the universe is dark. And, this Planck data can be “numerological” described with an iceberg model. Of course, “numerology” can be quickly discounted as non-science, but it can still be a hint of how a physics framework should be like. Especially, when this numerological description works on more than one physics fact, that is, for both the proton’s mass and the Planck’s data.
For the iceberg model (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ), it goes way beyond as numerology but has ontological meaning, that is, “all” existences must be iceberg-like.
a. All relativism is a subset of the iceberg-model. There cannot have a beauty if no ugly; no long if no short, etc. .
b. The Empire State Building cannot be a reality if there is no big earth and big air space around it. That is, its mass (existence) cannot be counted as the mass of its visible buildings. It carries a big “dark mass”.
c. Our lives (yours and mine) are chain-locked to big space with our digest track as that chain. When that track is severed from that outside space, our live- existence ends. Thus, our body mass is a bit larger than the number on a scale.
Of course, someone can choose to view all the above as the non-science nonsense. But, when a particle theory is exactly as this iceberg-model, the above becomes the criteria for all theories.
Thus, the issue is whether we need any “additional” dark mass to account for either proton’s or the Universe’s mass. Are we looking for dark mass to fit the Planck’s data? Or, are we looking for dark “particle” which makes up both proton’s and the Universe’s dark mass?
As the dark mass (including the dark energy) is very much a fact for this universe, it (dark mass) nonetheless needs not to be the result of the dark matter, as some other models can describe it. If we make “dark mass = dark matter” (while not “100%” accurate in physics), it will be linguistically wrong in addition to being wrong in physics.
a. Dark mass is a “Fact” in physics.
b. Dark mass is an essential part of every “existence (such as proton, life or the universe)”, demanded ontologically.
c. Dark matter (particle) is a speculative idea, trying as an explanation for dark mass in some models.
d. Dark mass needs no dark matter, as some other models account for dark mass without the need of any kind of dark matter.
There is a significant difference between the “dark mass” and the “dark particle”.
The comment was originally posted at (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/dark-matter/current-hints-of-dark-matter-413/#comment-56471 )