trailStable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
TeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
Survival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
Charged microscopic black holes are stopped in dense stellar matter by electromagnetic energy loss.
atomic
Gravitational and accretional energy loss stops neutral TeV-scale black holes inside white dwarfs.
In scenarios with more than six spacetime dimensions, only white dwarfs above about 1.1 solar masses can stop neutral TeV-scale black holes.
Black holes produced by cosmic ray collisions with stationary matter would move at nearly the speed of light
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Stable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.85Credence, 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 →
3depended 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.