trailParticle collisions at the LHC pose no danger to Earth.
Hazard-by-hazard exclusion· for
TeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.
Microscopic black holes evaporate almost instantaneously via Hawking radiation.
↑
Cosmic ray collisions with Earth's atmosphere reach energies exceeding LHC collision energies.
◌
◌
Stable neutral black holes produced by cosmic rays would pass through Earth without being gravitationally captured
◌
◌
+7
Dangerous strangelet production at the LHC is excluded by theory and RHIC observations.
atomic
A high-energy particle collision could trigger the universe's vacuum to decay into a more stable state.
The Standard Model electroweak vacuum is metastable rather than absolutely stable.
✓
?
↑
The predicted lifetime of the metastable electroweak vacuum vastly exceeds the current age of the universe.
Cosmic-ray precedent· for
Cosmic rays with energies exceeding LHC collision energies have struck Earth for billions of years without causing catastrophe.
atomic
Survival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
shared · shown elsewhere
Operational track record· for
The LHC has operated since 2010 without producing any observed harmful effects.
atomic
claim · causalA claim that one thing brings about another, not merely that the two go together.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Particle collisions at the LHC pose no danger to Earth.
✓VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →credence 0.99Credence, 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 →
Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.
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.