H-7 - Micro black holes follow the microcanonical Casadio-Harms Hawking law and can be metastable
Plaga’s ‘scenario 3’, distinct from Giddings-Mangano’s scenario 1 (canonical thermodynamic treatment, decay in ~10^-27 s) and scenario 2 (Hawking radiation switched off ad hoc). The microcanonical treatment (Casadio, Harms, Leblanc) fixes total energy, avoids the unitarity/energy-conservation problems of the canonical picture, and is based on peer-reviewed models; the mBH is a new type of elementary particle (‘quantum black hole’). The normalisation mass M_N lies between the mass whose 5D Schwarzschild radius equals L (eq. 3) and the mass M_C ~ 3Lc^2/G whose radius is ~6L (eq. 5); with the latter normalisation mBHs are quasistable for all allowed L.
Link to original
H-10 - Rotating micro black holes evaporate essentially as fast as nonrotating ones - lifetime differs by at most a factor 2.7
Semiclassical prediction, not an observation: no Hawking radiation has ever been observed. Extracted depth-limited from the abstract and secondary records (full text paywalled; see source note).
Link to original
H-14 - LHC strong-gravity objects would be near-threshold quantum or stringy states, not semiclassical thermal black holes
Consequence drawn in the paper: expected decays are low-multiplicity (typically two-body) final states rather than isotropic high-multiplicity “fireballs”, and near-threshold behavior is governed by unknown quantum gravity rather than by the calculable semiclassical formulae.
Link to original
H-24 - Micro black holes fail to Hawking-radiate yet still discharge, remaining stable and neutral
The hypothetical scenario the paper is built to bound — the only variant of “stable black hole” not already excluded by Earth and Sun survival (charged stable holes stop in Earth/Sun; see the charged-stopping argument). The paper notes there is no known consistent microphysics in which Schwinger discharge operates while Hawking radiation does not — both are quantum pair-creation effects, differing in that Schwinger discharge happens outside the horizon while Hawking radiation is trans-horizon — so the scenario is regarded as close to self-contradictory, but it is not strictly ruled out by that observation alone.
Link to original
H-35 - An LHC strong-gravity object would behave in some way not listed here
Residual catch-all minted at step 4b so the cluster’s members cover the space of possible fates of a produced object.
Link to original
One sub-question — what happens to a produced strong-gravity object — with four incompatible answers from the corpus: the canonical semiclassical picture (real thermal Hawking flux, essentially instant decay, rotation immaterial), the microcanonical correction under which holes can be metastable for macroscopic times, the near-threshold view on which the objects are low-entropy stringy states outside the thermal regime altogether, and the deliberately extreme no-Hawking-but-discharging stable neutral hole. These cannot co-hold as descriptions of the same objects, which is what makes the cluster a probability space; the residual covers decay behaviours no paper proposes. This cluster, not the production clusters, is where the Hawking-radiation hinge of the main question lives — carving it separately from HC-2 keeps “what is produced” and “what a produced object does” from double-counting the same evidence.
Prior
# HC-3 prior — nature and decay of an LHC-produced strong-gravity object. Members in HC-3.hypotheses order:
# [H-7 microcanonical Casadio-Harms metastable (Plaga),
# H-10 canonical thermal Hawking, prompt ~1e-27 s decay,
# H-14 near-threshold low-entropy quantum/stringy state, not a thermal hole (Meade-Randall),
# H-24 stable neutral, non-Hawking-radiating but Schwinger-discharging hole,
# H-35 residual — some decay behaviour none of the four describes].
# Conditional cluster: every weight is P(character | an object was produced). depends_on (rule 3, noted not
# imported): HC-1 sets whether such objects form at all and in which geometry — H-7 presupposes an RS2 warped
# dimension, so its weight here is further conditional on HC-1 delivering one; HC-2 sets whether the dominant
# low-scale-gravity signature is even a black hole — if not, these members describe a rarer subpopulation.
# Evidence split: NO inbound E edge is marked used_for_prior. All six (E-33 astronomical survival, E-34 white
# dwarfs, E-35 neutron stars, E-36 Earth/Sun, E-37 torsion-balance null, E-38 threshold concentration) are
# case-specific and discriminating, left for step 8. The no-observation arguments from
# `no_observation_arguments.py <dir> --cluster HC-3` (A-12,A-15,A-27,A-28,A-34..A-41,A-44 — all step-6
# approved, none corrected/rejected) enter only as reasoning below (rule 6), never as a term.
# --- Outside view first (rule: take the reference class before the specifics) ---
# H-10 is the consensus / prompt-decay description; Hawking radiation has never been directly observed in a
# real gravitational hole. Price it by the base rate at which a *multiply-derived consensus* mechanism of
# accepted theory, unobserved in its target regime, later proves essentially right. Reference class: general
# relativity's gravitational waves (predicted 1916, directly confirmed 2015), the Higgs (1964 -> 2012),
# neutrino oscillation, antimatter — predictions carried by several independent derivations have a high hit
# rate. Hawking flux specifically has four independent derivations in this corpus (A-38 Bogoliubov mixing,
# A-34 past-horizon boundary conditions, A-39 renormalized stress tensor, A-40 thermodynamic/GSL consistency)
# plus BEC analog-Hawking confirmation of a thermal spectrum. The trans-Planckian (A-37) and 2D
# regularization-scheme (A-36) caveats are the reasons this is not ~0.99: both are known and neither has
# overturned the result. For this value to be right, the consensus derivations must not share a hidden common
# failure the caveats hint at.
p_ref = 0.90 # outside-view base rate for a multiply-derived, in-regime-unobserved consensus mechanism
# H-10 canonical thermal Hawking — the anchor (scale is free, rule 3). Held up by p_ref AND a second,
# near-independent route: the model-independent decay argument (A-28/A-44 approved) — a hole made from partons
# carries no conserved charge they lack, so it can decay back and its rate is tied to its production rate,
# regardless of Hawking details. Rotation does not buy longevity (A-15: lifetime changes by at most 2.0-2.7x).
# Two independent routes to prompt decay are why the mainstream mass is large. Most confident member.
w_H10 = p_ref
# H-14 near-threshold non-thermal stringy state — also a prompt-decay, astrophysically-safe description,
# differing from H-10 in physical character, not in danger. Strong no-observation support: A-11 (thermality
# criteria demand M several x the higher-dimensional Planck scale) and A-12 (collisional inelasticity leaves
# <=60% of parton energy behind the horizon, cutting cross sections by orders of magnitude) both argue genuine
# thermal holes are rarely if ever produced. But the *observation* pinning production to threshold (O-20, edge
# E-38) is reserved for step 8, so the prior lift from that channel is kept modest to avoid pre-counting it,
# and the canonical description still covers whatever genuine-thermal parameter space exists. Slightly below
# the anchor a priori; second most confident.
f_H14 = 0.85 # H-14 : H-10 odds — comparable mainstream regime, A-11/A-12 support, E-38 held for step 8
w_H14 = f_H14 * w_H10
# H-7 microcanonical Casadio-Harms metastability (Plaga scenario 3): lifetimes ms-to-years via a microcanonical
# Hawking law in an RS2 warped geometry. Peer-reviewed but a minority correction; the mainstream
# (Giddings-Mangano, LSAG) holds the canonical + model-independent decay applies and rejects macroscopic
# metastability. For it to be right the microcanonical treatment must not merely refine but change the lifetime
# by many orders of magnitude AND the required RS2 geometry must obtain (the HC-1 conditional). The
# torsion-balance null (E-37) and threshold data strain it further but are step 8. Low odds.
o_H7 = 0.06 # H-7 : H-10 odds — peer-reviewed minority law needing a specific geometry
w_H7 = o_H7 * w_H10
# H-24 stable, neutral, non-radiating but Schwinger-discharging hole — the deliberately extreme scenario
# Giddings-Mangano built to bound. A-44 (approved): every framework in which Schwinger discharge operates also
# produces Hawking decay, and no conserved charge blocks decay, so "discharges but never radiates" is nearly
# self-contradictory. It must defeat BOTH routes supporting prompt decay at once, so its prior sits below H-7;
# nonzero only because no theorem strictly forbids it.
o_H24 = 0.02 # H-24 : H-10 odds — near self-contradictory per A-44
w_H24 = o_H24 * w_H10
# H-35 residual (rule 4: its own argued weight, never 1 - sum of the others). Concretely, an unmodelled fate:
# decay to a stable Planck-mass remnant, evaporation stalling on an intermediate timescale, or dynamics from a
# quantum-gravity completion no one has written down. Priced by the outside-view rate at which, in a question
# this thoroughly mapped (canonical, microcanonical, stringy-threshold, and a deliberate extreme all
# enumerated) and backstopped by the model-independent decay argument, the truth still falls outside the menu —
# uncommon but real. On the same pseudo-probability scale as the others; independent of every w_* above.
w_H35 = 0.045 # ~2-3% of the normalised mass — an unmodelled decay law, argued on its own
prior("HC-3", [w_H7, w_H10, w_H14, w_H24, w_H35])Normalises to ≈ [0.030, 0.505, 0.429, 0.010, 0.025] for [H-7, H-10, H-14, H-24, H-35] — the two mainstream prompt-decay descriptions (H-10+H-14) hold ≈0.93, leaving ≈0.07 across metastable/stable/other for the compact-star survival family (E-33..E-36) to act on at step 8. p_ref and f_H14 are the drivers: dropping f_H14 to 0.45 moves ≈14 points from H-14 onto H-10 without touching the safe total; lowering p_ref is the whole cost of doubting the consensus Hawking picture.