Slashdot Mirror

There are two things about this publication that make it remarkable.

1. This is a new useful information processing primitive that is only possible to do quantum, not in any classical information processing (the paper cites impossibility proof in classical domain). There's just a handful such quantum primitives known today (e.g., QKD, Shor's algorithm), so discovering one more is a great deal.

2. It is practically implementable with today's quantum crypto hardware. In fact, I expect any lab that has a working free-space QKD system can be working on an experimental demonstration of location-restricted QKD right now. It may just take some software rewriting and a couple extra wi-fi links to assemble a full 2D-location QKD scheme.

To be fair I must mention that the location primitive has been published two months ago by R. Malaney from Australia. However, his version was more difficult to implement (although also doable with today's experimental techniques), and notably it lacked QKD functionality. Now with this publication the scheme is complete and is even supplied with a security proof. My applauds to the authors.

HP already did something very similar. You can google predicted box office success twitter, or simply view HP's report. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.5699v1.pdf So congrats on being behind CMU? I guess the concept is slightly different making it new research, but not new enough to really merit a whole lot of discussion.

But I get the feeling that for a techie-site there is a strangely high amount of no-can-do people here...

Maybe because Slashdot has a higher proportion of software developers and that is people who understand why it's not possible.

You just assume it's not possible no matter what you do.
I claim it is possible, and any issue can be addressed.

In 2008 or so I have seen scientists in the field claim no solution exists yet (even at a theoretical stage) and that there is no proof that a solution is possible. But if you say it's possible then I guess I'll have to take your word for it. As for Internet voting: Vulnerability analysis of three remote voting methods

And come on, even fucking soda brands can print unique codes inside bottlecaps which can be used anonymously online to win or buy shit.

This has nothing to do with voting. The soda brand knows in advance that code 1234 gives you access to a special tune for your phone. There are ample confidential records to prove it somewhere in a vault. If you come to their website or in person and claim it gives you access to the Mercedes they will laugh in your face and have the means to prove you are lying.

In contrast your voting key 1234 is not associated to any candidate when it is generated. You are the one who does that when you vote. But because your vote is secret you cannot prove to anyone, not even the government, how you voted. This means that when you complain that the online records show key 1234 as voting for candidate A instead of candidate B they will laugh in your face because you have, by definition, no proof.

Its a popular science article. What do you expect? A layman does not understand P, NP or O(n).
I personally enjoy the Popular Physcis section on arxiv.

Regarding communication: that's completely normal. Have you ever tried making carefully qualified statements when explaining scientific research to the public? It does not work. The public expects definite statements from science, it doesn't want to hear what uncertainties are involved or what data is lacking for more certain conclusions.

This study might be interesting in this context: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5009v1

for infecting Earth.

Yours In Akademgorodok,
N. Haflinger

arxiv.org is where a lot of math (CS, stats, physics, quantitative bio etc.) papers get put up these days. However being uploaded there doesn't guarantee they've undergone peer review, so caveat lector.

Sounds like the dark galaxy called VIRGOHI 21 which might have ~1000x as much dark matter as visible matter (compare to ~10-20x for the Milky Way's ratio).

"You could become a Horta-culturalist!" - A.L..

"Was found to inhabit a naturally occurring asphalt lake!"

Cool. We have [three naturally occurring] asphalt lakes, other than our highways and roads!

"Metal Respiration."

Very cool. It's a metal breathing based life form Jim!

The Horta's ancestors! It must be! [:)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark

"You could beome a Horta-culturalist." - Alan L.

YUM ASPHALT! [:)] Titanic discovery!

Microbial Life in a Liquid Asphalt Desert
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2047

PDF of paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2047v1

Go out and shovel the asphalt driveway!
I can't, it got up and crawled away! [:)]

I don't know why we ever hired a Horta to be our driveway anyway? Concrete would have been friendlier.
Yeah, but the Horta purrs.
Oh yeah, right.

"You could become a Horta-culturalist!" - A.L..

"Was found to inhabit a naturally occurring asphalt lake!"

Cool. We have [three naturally occurring] asphalt lakes, other than our highways and roads!

"Metal Respiration."

Very cool. It's a metal breathing based life form Jim!

The Horta's ancestors! It must be! [:)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark

"You could beome a Horta-culturalist." - Alan L.

YUM ASPHALT! [:)] Titanic discovery!

Microbial Life in a Liquid Asphalt Desert
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2047

PDF of paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2047v1

Go out and shovel the asphalt driveway!
I can't, it got up and crawled away! [:)]

I don't know why we ever hired a Horta to be our driveway anyway? Concrete would have been friendlier.
Yeah, but the Horta purrs.
Oh yeah, right.

The numerous grammatical errors in the article make me suspicious. You can read the original research paper here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2047.pdf It clarifies many points

We may soon need similar lessons here in the UK when we want to access those filtered sites suspected of potentially hosting copyrighted material. Damn, that sounds sad.

Hate to break it to you but most web sites you could ever even think of accessing will be hosting copyrighted material. That's right not just potentially hosting copyrighted material but actually hanging up copyrighted material for anyone to download.

To avoid getting copyrighted material, you'd have to find a country that did not sign the Berne Convention treaty, but even then the material might be under copyright. Alternately, even the countries in the Berne Convention treaty might have material online that has been made Public Domain either because the copyright expire or the rights holder (not the creator) put it into the public domain. Even then you'll have to download (and read) pages of copyrighted information to get at the PD stuff.

Alternately you can just download as much copyrighted material as you want. Try starting from these sites:

• SourceForge
• CreativeCommons
• Linux Kernel Archives
• arXiv
• Ubuntu
• Fedora
• NetBSD
• Oracle
• Sun
• Haiku
• Internet Archive
• and so on

And remember, there's more where that came from.

>> As always with physics, you have a pretty huge margin of error.

> As always with cosmology, you have a pretty huge margin of error.

>Fixed that for you. Seriously, that's just a few orders of magnitude off. Seen the error bars on intergalactic distances?

Despite the parent post's snideness, the GP is basically right. Parent poster: (1) It's not just "a few" order of magnitude off, it's 14 orders of magnitude. That's a lot, by any standard in science. (2) The paper is not about cosmology, it's about astrophysics. (3) Although this is not about cosmology, your perception of cosmology as a low-precision science is about 15 years out of date. Cosmology is currently enjoying a golden age of high-precision measurements. For example, the Hubble constant is now known to a precision of a few percent, whereas 20 years ago there were still people disagreeing to each other by factors of 2. (4) Intergalactic distances aren't particularly relevant here, but anyway the ladder of cosmic distance scales isn't uncertain to anything like 14 orders of magnitude.

And by the way, could we let the "fixed that for you" meme die? It's rude, and it's getting old.

Here is the scientific paper.

As a physicist, I feel that this is a little far out. It assumes violation of the conservation laws for baryon number and lepton number. They claim that this nonconservation is actually predicted by a loophole in the standard model, which may be true, but it's never actually been observed -- if anyone observed such a violation experimentally, they'd definitely get the Nobel prize.

It's also built on a particular model of quark-quark interactions. (The strong nuclear force is not an interaction for which we have an exact formula. All we have is various models of it.) All the predictions are therefore going to be dependent on this model, as well as on the other approximations they have to make. People have predicted other weird objects, such as quark stars, using similar models, and the predictions have turned out to be very hard to pin down in any model-independent way. Some theorists use different methods, and come out with completely different predictions. Nor has any really compelling experimental evidence turned up for quark stars, although there are a couple of candidate objects that seem too dense to be ordinary neutron stars. If there's no solid evidence for quark stars, it seems like quite a stretch to go beyond that and predict things about even more exotic objects. The landscape is littered with predictions of exotic objects along these lines: quark stars, strange stars, black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, boson stars, q-balls, ...

They recently revised their estimate of the lifetime of these objects, making it ~10^7 years rather than a fraction of a second (only 14 orders of magnitude different). Even though 10^7 years is fairly long, it's really not very long on cosmic timescales, so we would expect these to be fairly rare and hard to find, even if they did exist.

E8 theory as Lisi currently presents it has been disproven.

However, just this last year it was found that prior surveys of background radiation had missed the mark widely.

Huh? What "mark" did WMAP or COBE miss widely? Says who?

Further, there is strong new evidence contradicting the assumption that we are in a "typical" region of the universe, simultaneously calling into question whether expansion is actually accelerating.

WTF? The 1998 supernovae measurements I cited were measured over billions of light years, and have been confirmed by more recent measurements with higher precision. They're confirmed by WMAP's measurements of the background radiation, which encompasses nearly the entire observable universe. They're also confirmed by Chandra data of galaxy clusters.

However, just this last year it was found that prior surveys of background radiation had missed the mark widely.

Huh? What "mark" did WMAP or COBE miss widely? Says who?

Further, there is strong new evidence contradicting the assumption that we are in a "typical" region of the universe, simultaneously calling into question whether expansion is actually accelerating.

WTF? The 1998 supernovae measurements I cited were measured over billions of light years, and have been confirmed by more recent measurements with higher precision. They're confirmed by WMAP's measurements of the background radiation, which encompasses nearly the entire observable universe. They're also confirmed by Chandra data of galaxy clusters.

Thanks. It's worth noting that the Bullet Cluster results you linked to are only the most recent development in dark matter's nearly 80 year history:

1933 - Zwicky studies the Coma cluster of galaxies and is surprised to find that these galaxies are orbiting each other much faster than he predicted based on their visible mass. He proposes that each galaxy actually contains much more mass than is visible.

1959 - Measurements of galactic rotational velocities conflict with expected velocities based on the amount of matter observed to be present. The dark matter concept proposed by Zwicky is found to solve this problem too.

1970s - Big Bang nucleosynthesis has trouble reconciling observations of high deuterium density with the expansion rate of the universe. Non-baryonic dark matter solves this problem as well.

At this point, dark matter was simply an hypothesis. MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) was another hypothesis with equal weight. But then in 2006 measurements of the Bullet Cluster supported the dark matter hypothesis over the MOND hypothesis.

Simultaneously, WMAP (2001-present) measured the microwave background radiation and independently confirmed the existence of dark matter. It also revealed an even larger amount of "dark energy" which confirmed the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.

Or it may be that the visible universe is smaller than the actual universe. This paper estimates the minimum possible diameter of the universe to be 24 gigaparsecs, which is four gigaparsecs less than the diameter of the observable universe. It's not likely, but if it were true it would mean we could look a billion lightyears in one direction and see a region of space, or we could look 77 billion lightyears in the opposite direction and see how that same region looked 76 billion years earlier, by seeing light the looped around the long way around the universe.

Actually, this goes in steps. They went from ~1.18TeV (which was already the highest energy for a proton beam ever achieved in lab) to 3.5TeV. The experiments will run at 3.5TeV for some time, then another shutdown to get them to the design energy of 7TeV per beam (14 TeV per collision). All is happening as planned.

The "problems" you mention happened with every single collider, ever. When you get to a new scale, you expect things to happen differently from your original idea; so you plan to allow time to solve problems. The accelerator itself is an experiment, and one that is going very well.

You want hard results? ALICE published a science paper on collisions almost four months ago. You can see more from ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb. Lots of simulations, descriptions and detection methods, but at least the two "smaller" groups (LHCb and ALICE) have measurements already, at one sixth of the energy they were designed to work on. In fact, LHCb will only have actual b hadrons to see when they start colliding protons at 3.5TeV; but they still could find a meaningful result to publish, sooner than anticipated by anyone with even passing understanding of collider physics. Is that enough? Or do people actually believe things go like this?

Here is the scientific paper. Figure 3 on p. 4 has a realistic diagram, showing one star completely filling its Roche lobe.

Way cool! Thanks for the link.

The artist's rendition shows two spherical bodies, but there's no way that can be correct. At the orbital velocities involved these things must have tidal bulges that make Kevin Smith look positively svelte!

You're right, the artist's conception is messed up. Here is the scientific paper. Figure 3 on p. 4 has a realistic diagram, showing one star completely filling its Roche lobe.

Anyway, this is cool because this system is much closer and higher in frequency than the classic Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar. That means that it's radiating gravitational waves at a much higher rate.

Here's a link to the paper: arXiv:1003.1050v1. Have a read and make a more informed opinion about what field it belongs it.

Does this only apply to image data, or will we be able to use this to clean up other databases? Will it work with sampled sounds? Names and addresses and inventory?

Of course not. It's not magic. There are certain assumptions that can be made about most real-life images, mainly that they have small total variance. That means they have large areas of near-constant intensity/color distribution separated by interfaces with large jumps (like a cartoon image would have).

Though this method uses the l_1 norm and not total variation.

More importantly, HOW does it work?

See here.

Since the problem is tantalizingly easy to frame as a standard data-mining or machine-learning problem, albeit with some quirks, there's quite a lot of work from a lot of research groups that seems to be looking at it. Some examples: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Peer review indeed isn't a guarantee for proper science if easily-debunkable crap like this can get through peer review.

They don't seem to be supportable once the source data are considered. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421

You obviously did not read the papers I linked to. I'll highlight this one http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf and you can go back an read another on why your breeder idea won't work.

The summaries were intriguing but lame. Here's the real thing (preprint):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2858

Author's page is here:

http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~massimo.franceschet/

Interesting stuff.

It took a lot of asking around, but someone finally pointed me the paper, which actually dates back to September.

If you dug a little deeper you'd find that W. Edelstein is one of the pioneers of magnetic resonance imaging (my own field). "Physics" is an awfully big field. I couldn't find out what his original specialization was, but it's been a LONG time since he did any space-related work. He is certainly an outsider to the field of manned space travel.

I've never heard of his co-author, Arthur Edelstein. It looks like he's a programmer at UCSF, formerly UC Berkeley. William's son? Grandson? Google scholar only shows up a couple of hits. W and A Edelstein have a paper on MR in JMRI (looks like from W's lab, he's senior author, A buried in the middle). The two of them have been covering a lot of ground - they've also got an arxiv preprint on electronic voting machines. That's kind of weird too - it doesn't have much to do with physics and every one of the references are web pages, including Wikipedia.

  His abstract seems a bit strange - I'd have thought you'd have to do something a little more in depth to get accepted to an APS meeting. I've seen much the same calculation in Slashdot posts over the years. Maybe those posters should have submitted something. It's also possible there's a lot more content in the actual presentation.

Now, what was it you were saying about presumptions?

Yes the earth is coming out of an ice age so we would expect to be at a plateau about now.

and what leads you to this conclusion? which dataset are we using here?

Temps reconstructed from ice cores. See Hansen's book or just about any serious book or site on global warming.

The problem is we're at the plateau but CO2 is now FAR higher than it was during any of the previous plateaus over the last few hundred thousand years.

So are the number of humans (and human artifacts (cities, roads)), cows and corn farms on this world. All contribute to warming. The point being you have to show it is significant.

You have a gun pointed at your head. Person A shows you evidence it is loaded. Person B shows you evidence it is not. If you value your life, you better be absolutely sure Person B is correct before you let someone pull the trigger. If you aren't absolutely sure, then you best not pull that trigger until you are. The point being that the evidence that GW is insignificant really needs to completely overwhelm the evidence that it is, and it's just not doing that yet. I for one am glad that folks like Michaels and Lindzen are doing their darndest to prove that the climate is A-OK. It keeps the other guys on their toes, and gives us greater confidence in what comes out the other end of the process unscathed. Given the uncertainties involved in climate science, it would be scary if there were no contrarian voices out there.

You may not believe CO2 makes much difference, but at this point you would have to call that a faith position

er, why? Did you read the link?

If nothing else in the system changes, a doubling of CO2 from the preindustrial levels is estimated to produce a temperature rise of 1.2 to 1.3C (2.2 to 2.3F). Again, the calculation is straightforward and there is little controversy about the figure among scientists. Now recall that over the last century and a half CO2 levels have risen from a preindustrial 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. At the same time global average mean temperature has risen (depending on who you believe) 0.8 to 1.0C.

I don't think I am unreasonable in thinking 1degC isn't that significant. Mind you, I didn't check his math, but the logic is sound.

I put the link on my reading queue, and skimmed it. Does look interesting, thanks. Unfortunately I don't have time to really pore over it in detail at the moment. But initial reaction is this. If the climate is so complex, how could a "straightforward calculation" be expected to give you anything other than a very gross ballpark figure? About 1-2 degrees not being significant, I have two points. 1) Temps in the Eemian were about that much higher than now, yet sea levels were several meters higher (source: Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren, and his paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126). We don't know the cause for sure, but a good guess would seem to be that the higher temps caused ice caps and glaciers to melt. 2) 1 degree is on the low end of current predictions.

because there's significant evidence that indicates doubling CO2 will increase global temps by like 2-5 degrees C.

SHOW ME REFERENCES. Tell me exactly how the calculated ~1degC inflates to 2-5degC. From what I have gathered, the 2-5degC is the faith position here.

That's the IPCC AR4 conclusion. If you know anything about climate science, I would assume you'd have heard of it and be aware of its major conclusions.

Further investigations like the recent work by Lindzen and Choi may revise our understanding of the role of CO2, but so far alternate explanations are far from being

Correct. David Deutsch proved that "spooky action at a distance" is information being transferred via classical channels after all. The same principle should apply to energy transfer.

This isn't a huge breakthrough. First, their dirac peaks, while graphene-like, look horrible. This means the quality of graphene they are dealing with is very low. In fact, they don't thermally decompose all of the SiC, so they're still not much different than the SiC decomposition method. Something like this method holds much more promise. CVD growth of graphene on a copper substrate and subsequent rapid etching of the copper yields HUGE 30+" sheets of single to tri-layer graphene films.

For those who do not care to register for that New Scientist, we still have arXiv... :)

http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0702015

Paul B.

Clearly Authors need to be paid otherwise the profession would disappear as we know it.

Yes, clearly writing did not exist before copyright and nobody publishes writing for free today. Personally, I never write anything without demanding to be paid for it.

The title of the slashdot article, "Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All," is misleading, although the summary is less misleading. There's no "after all." Here is the earlier paper, by Giddings and Mangano, which concluded that the LHC would not cause the end of the world. Here is the more recent paper, by Choptuik and Pretorius, referred to in the present slashdot summary.

The "after all" makes it sound as though the Choptuik paper contradicts the Giddings paper. It doesn't. Giddings and Choptuik agree that if the number of spacetime dimensions, D, equals 4, then black holes will not be formed at LHC energies. They agree that at much higher energies, with D=4, black holes will be formed. Choptuik checked the latter statement more carefully than had previously been done, and confirmed what everyone expected.

The LHC black hole doomsday scenarios all require D>4, and in addition they require a number of other implausible things to occur. The Choptuik calculation has little relevance to this discussion, because it just confirms something everyone was pretty sure was true anyway, without affecting the extreme unlikeliness of the long list of *other* things that would have to be true if you were to get an LHC black hole doomsday scenario.

I don't see anywhere in the Choptuik paper where they explicitly state that they're assuming D=4. But I think they must be, since, e.g., they refer to things like Petrov classification of spacetimes, which I think are specific to D=4.

By the way, a commonly quoted argument against the LHC black hole doomsday scenario is actually an oversimplification meant for consumption by nonscientists. The argument is that if such a thing was possible, it would actually already have happened to the earth because of cosmic-ray events. If you read the Giddings paper, there are some loopholes in this argument that they specifically identify. If the long list of implausible things actually all turn out to be true, then it is possible, in a certain specific example involving D=6 (see p. 28) that LHC collisions *would* destroy the earth after a lag of millions of years, while cosmic ray interactions would not. For that reason, they turn to arguments involving neutron stars and white dwarfs rather than planets. It turns out that this argument has no such loophole: even if the long list of implausible statements were all true, neutron stars and white dwarfs would already have been destroyed by cosmic rays. Since we observe that neutron stars and white dwarfs do exist, we conclude that the long list of implausible statements cannot be true. So I know it isn't as comforting to non-physicists as the argument based on the earth's present existence, but the argument based on neutron stars' and white dwarfs' existence is actually secure.

The title of the slashdot article, "Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes After All," is misleading, although the summary is less misleading. There's no "after all." Here is the earlier paper, by Giddings and Mangano, which concluded that the LHC would not cause the end of the world. Here is the more recent paper, by Choptuik and Pretorius, referred to in the present slashdot summary.

The "after all" makes it sound as though the Choptuik paper contradicts the Giddings paper. It doesn't. Giddings and Choptuik agree that if the number of spacetime dimensions, D, equals 4, then black holes will not be formed at LHC energies. They agree that at much higher energies, with D=4, black holes will be formed. Choptuik checked the latter statement more carefully than had previously been done, and confirmed what everyone expected.

The LHC black hole doomsday scenarios all require D>4, and in addition they require a number of other implausible things to occur. The Choptuik calculation has little relevance to this discussion, because it just confirms something everyone was pretty sure was true anyway, without affecting the extreme unlikeliness of the long list of *other* things that would have to be true if you were to get an LHC black hole doomsday scenario.

I don't see anywhere in the Choptuik paper where they explicitly state that they're assuming D=4. But I think they must be, since, e.g., they refer to things like Petrov classification of spacetimes, which I think are specific to D=4.

By the way, a commonly quoted argument against the LHC black hole doomsday scenario is actually an oversimplification meant for consumption by nonscientists. The argument is that if such a thing was possible, it would actually already have happened to the earth because of cosmic-ray events. If you read the Giddings paper, there are some loopholes in this argument that they specifically identify. If the long list of implausible things actually all turn out to be true, then it is possible, in a certain specific example involving D=6 (see p. 28) that LHC collisions *would* destroy the earth after a lag of millions of years, while cosmic ray interactions would not. For that reason, they turn to arguments involving neutron stars and white dwarfs rather than planets. It turns out that this argument has no such loophole: even if the long list of implausible statements were all true, neutron stars and white dwarfs would already have been destroyed by cosmic rays. Since we observe that neutron stars and white dwarfs do exist, we conclude that the long list of implausible statements cannot be true. So I know it isn't as comforting to non-physicists as the argument based on the earth's present existence, but the argument based on neutron stars' and white dwarfs' existence is actually secure.

Actually, its even possible for the group velocity to exceed the speed of light, without violating relativity/causality. See for e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101068

This story has been carried verbatim by (at least) two dozen big news outlets. But I really, really wish the study was made available when the researchers decided to speak to the press; what this story amounts to is an ad for the upcoming issue of Clinical Psychology Review. It might be important to, y'know, take a look at the data and methodology of the study before discussing its conclusions all over the Web. What good is RTFA when the primary source is currently unpublished?

Anyone else wanna see scholarly print journals replaced with something like arXiv?

So look for more reports of this sort over the next few years. Still, it looks like a big jump forward for our early-solar-system models.

--Greg

At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:

• String theory is bunk. I know this because I heard someone call it "string theology" once and I thought that was clever.
• This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.
• Modern physics is bunk because nothing can move in spacetime. Visit my blog to learn the truth!
• Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but electricity. We have books, too!
• Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls! How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper?!?
• Modern science is bunk. These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible.
• YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!

There. That should save everyone some time.

My question is: is the lack of white dwarfs being destroyed surprising or predicted by a solid theory?

If #1-3 came out the way we don't expect, then we would expect white dwarfs to be destroyed, based on solid theory.

If predicted, I would of course be interested in a link (if at all possible) to an explanation.

See these two papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3414 http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

My question is: is the lack of white dwarfs being destroyed surprising or predicted by a solid theory?

If #1-3 came out the way we don't expect, then we would expect white dwarfs to be destroyed, based on solid theory.

If predicted, I would of course be interested in a link (if at all possible) to an explanation.

See these two papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3414 http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381

Wrong. Strangelets could crystallize all the matter of the Earth into dark matter. No black holes involved.

I didn't claim anything about strangelets, just about microscopic black holes. You're also incorrect to refer to the final state of the earth in this scenario as dark matter.

Anyway, see this paper and this paper for a discussion of the possibility of strangelets. The basic arguments against this scenario are: (1) strangelets would be positively charged, so they would be electrically repelled by ordinary nuclei, and (2) the LHC would produce them in smaller numbers than RHIC, which is already in operation.

Wrong. Strangelets could crystallize all the matter of the Earth into dark matter. No black holes involved.

I didn't claim anything about strangelets, just about microscopic black holes. You're also incorrect to refer to the final state of the earth in this scenario as dark matter.

Anyway, see this paper and this paper for a discussion of the possibility of strangelets. The basic arguments against this scenario are: (1) strangelets would be positively charged, so they would be electrically repelled by ordinary nuclei, and (2) the LHC would produce them in smaller numbers than RHIC, which is already in operation.

If my thinking is correct, I don't see how a microscopic black hole would be capable of any accretion.

This is a relatively short and nontechnical paper that discusses this. See p. 7. For more detail, see this paper, pp. 16ff and 79ff.

First you have to assume that black holes could be produced at the LHC (which requires some nonstandard physics like extra dimensions), and also that they don't evaporate immediately due to Hawking radiation (which violates basic principles of quantum mechanics). Then you have a black hole that is typically produced at a velocity greater than the earth's escape velocity. If it happens to be emitted in the downward direction, it passes through the earth once without stopping, and therefore accretes a negligible amount of mass. However, the velocities are random, and some small number could be produced with velocities less than the earth's escape velocity. These would oscillate permanently in the earth's gravitational field. They would therefore have unlimited time to do low-probability accretion events, so even though the cross-section is small, they can end up accreting significant amounts of matter.

Your calculation underestimates the radius for capture. This is discussed on pp. 16ff of the second paper. The radius for capture depends on the dynamics. For instance, if you release an atom at rest with respect to the black hole, then it will be absorbed with 100% probability from any radius, because it will simply slowly accelerate toward it; the radius for capture is infinite. In reality you have nuclei that are bound into atoms, and the black hole is zooming past at high speed. The actual radius for capture is therefore bigger than the Schwarzschild radius, but smaller than infinity. They estimate it to be about 10^-16 m, which is small, but not as ridiculously small as the Schwarzschild radius. (Your Schwarzschild is wrong, because the mass isn't equal to the mass of the proton. It's more like a TeV.)

If my thinking is correct, I don't see how a microscopic black hole would be capable of any accretion.

This is a relatively short and nontechnical paper that discusses this. See p. 7. For more detail, see this paper, pp. 16ff and 79ff.

First you have to assume that black holes could be produced at the LHC (which requires some nonstandard physics like extra dimensions), and also that they don't evaporate immediately due to Hawking radiation (which violates basic principles of quantum mechanics). Then you have a black hole that is typically produced at a velocity greater than the earth's escape velocity. If it happens to be emitted in the downward direction, it passes through the earth once without stopping, and therefore accretes a negligible amount of mass. However, the velocities are random, and some small number could be produced with velocities less than the earth's escape velocity. These would oscillate permanently in the earth's gravitational field. They would therefore have unlimited time to do low-probability accretion events, so even though the cross-section is small, they can end up accreting significant amounts of matter.

Your calculation underestimates the radius for capture. This is discussed on pp. 16ff of the second paper. The radius for capture depends on the dynamics. For instance, if you release an atom at rest with respect to the black hole, then it will be absorbed with 100% probability from any radius, because it will simply slowly accelerate toward it; the radius for capture is infinite. In reality you have nuclei that are bound into atoms, and the black hole is zooming past at high speed. The actual radius for capture is therefore bigger than the Schwarzschild radius, but smaller than infinity. They estimate it to be about 10^-16 m, which is small, but not as ridiculously small as the Schwarzschild radius. (Your Schwarzschild is wrong, because the mass isn't equal to the mass of the proton. It's more like a TeV.)

Here is the scientific paper.

I suspect I have identified such objects from submillimeter observations http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666 but it is very good to see a more robust population identified here.