trailSurvival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
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.
Particle collisions at the LHC pose no danger to Earth.
Stellar survival bound· 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.
Cosmic ray collisions with Earth's atmosphere reach energies exceeding LHC collision energies.
◌
◌
Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays strike white dwarfs and neutron stars at astrophysically significant rates.
◌
◌
The highest-energy cosmic rays include a substantial proton fraction.
↑
◌
◌
Stable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
Charged microscopic black holes are stopped in dense stellar matter by electromagnetic energy loss.
Gravitational and accretional energy loss stops neutral TeV-scale black holes inside white dwarfs.
◌
◌
A rapidly accreting captured black hole would destroy its host star on timescales shorter than observed stellar ages.
Micro black holes captured inside neutron stars or white dwarfs accrete at approximately the Bondi rate
A black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
◌
✕
↑
+1 more
claim · causalA claim that one thing brings about another, not merely that the two go together.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Survival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.92Credence, 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.