trailPublished LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
TeV-scale black holes produced at the LHC pose no significant risk.
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
Residual metastable-scenario gap· for
A metastable black hole accreting matter at the Eddington limit would emit hazardous Hawking radiation.
Black holes emit Hawking radiation.
✓
◌
↑
Limits of safety arguments· for
The probability of error in a safety argument bounds the confidence it can provide about low-probability risks
Rebuttal of the metastable scenario· against
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
shared · shown elsewhere
Catastrophic growth does not occur in Plaga's metastable micro black hole scenario.
In warped brane-world models, micro black holes cease growing far below catastrophic mass.
Plaga maintains his metastable black-hole risk scenario despite published rebuttals.
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →
2depended 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.