trailTeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.
Particle collisions at the LHC pose no danger to Earth.
Hawking evaporation· for
Microscopic black holes evaporate almost instantaneously via Hawking radiation.
Terrestrial cosmic-ray precedent· for
Cosmic ray collisions with Earth's atmosphere reach energies exceeding LHC collision energies.
Cosmic rays with energies above 10^18 eV are observed.
The center-of-mass energy of the highest-energy cosmic-ray atmospheric collisions exceeds the LHC's collision energy.
Cosmic rays with energies exceeding LHC collision energies have struck Earth for billions of years without causing catastrophe.
atomic
Stable neutral black holes produced by cosmic rays would pass through Earth without being gravitationally captured
Black holes produced by cosmic ray collisions with stationary matter would move at nearly the speed of light
Gravitational accretion in Earth-density matter cannot appreciably slow a relativistic neutral micro black hole
Compact-star survival bound (Giddings–Mangano)· for
If TeV-scale black hole production is possible in particle collisions, cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would produce such black holes.
Stable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
Old white dwarfs and neutron stars are observed to survive for billions of years
atomic
+1 more
Planck-size accretion fallback· for
A microscopic black hole on the order of the Planck length cannot accrete ordinary matter at a meaningful rate.
atomic
Residual-risk critiques· against
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
shared · shown elsewhere
A metastable black hole accreting matter at the Eddington limit would emit hazardous Hawking radiation.
shared · shown elsewhere
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
assumed
Black holes emit Hawking radiation.
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
TeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.98Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.