argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

Hawking evaporation

forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →TeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.

The argument

Given that linked claim, it follows that linked claim, so any black hole created at the LHC would decay before it could interact with or accrete surrounding matter, and therefore poses no risk.

Does it work?

Not yet evaluated.

Premises

SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Microscopic black holes evaporate almost instantaneously via Hawking radiation.
SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Black holes emit Hawking radiation.

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

No source is recorded as making it.

Earlier ratings

Jul 19, 2026
The inference is sound: if black holes radiate, a TeV-scale hole's temperature is so high that it decays in a tiny fraction of a second, long before it could interact with surrounding matter. The argument stands or falls with the presupposition that black holes emit Hawking radiation, which rests on a near-unanimous theoretical consensus and analogue-gravity experiments but lacks direct astrophysical detection. The overall safety case is deliberately structured so that it does not depend on this argument alone.