H-1 - Stable LHC black holes trapped in Earth would accrete it catastrophically within the solar lifetime
The danger hypothesis G-M set out to test; it presupposes both failure of Hawking evaporation and neutralization/trapping.
Link to original
H-2 - Stable LHC black holes pose no macroscopic risk to Earth within the solar lifetime
G-M’s conclusion, stated as holding across the full bracket of extra-dimensional scenarios they analyze.
Link to original
H-6 - Stable LHC black holes have some fate or impact not listed here
Residual catch-all for the fate-of-a-stable-LHC-black-hole cluster.
Link to original
The Giddings-Mangano danger-vs-safety question itself, carved as a conditional cluster: it only bites on the branch where evaporation fails (HC-2) and production is possible (HC-3). Not exhaustive by construction — the residual absorbs intermediate-damage fates and accretion regimes outside the analyzed bracket.
Prior
# HC-1 prior — fate of a stable LHC black hole trapped in Earth, conditional on the shared
# antecedent (evaporation fails per HC-2's H-7 branch, production possible per HC-3).
# Members in HC-1.hypotheses order: [H-1 catastrophic accretion, H-2 no macroscopic risk, H-6 residual].
# Evidence partition: no_observation_arguments.py --cluster HC-1 returns none. All four inbound
# edges — the lone edge [[E-1 - O-1 × HC-1 — old low-field white dwarfs observed intact]] and the
# CG-1 group ([[E-2 - O-2 × HC-1 — Gyr-old neutron stars observed intact]],
# [[E-3 - O-3 × HC-1 — super-LHC cosmic-ray exposure of Earth, WDs and NSs]],
# [[E-4 - O-4 × HC-1 — Earth and Sun survived 4.5 Gyr of UHECR bombardment]]) carry the case-specific
# astrophysical survival/exposure record that discriminates H-1 from H-2 — exactly the evidence
# whose strength (incl. A-3's observer-selection correction) step 8 must price. None is an
# outside-view base rate, so NO edge is marked used_for_prior; this prior is evidence-blind
# outside-view only. Arguments A-1/A-2/A-3 ride those edges and are likewise left to step 8.
# H-2 no macroscopic risk — the anchor. Pre-evidence, a ~10^-23 kg object accreting a planet
# faster than 5 Gyr requires an unusually efficient accretion regime; in generic (4D-like)
# gravity Bondi-type rates are hopelessly slow, so "too slow to matter" is the default outcome
# across the space of TeV-gravity scenarios and takes unit weight.
w_no_risk = 1.0
# H-1 catastrophic accretion, as odds vs H-2. Basis: before consulting any survival data, the
# trapped-BH accretion timescale is uncertain over very many decades (it swings with the number
# and geometry of extra dimensions and the crossover radius); treating log-timescale as roughly
# uniform over the plausible range, a substantial minority of that range lands below the ~5 Gyr
# solar-lifetime cutoff — the scenario was theoretically live enough to warrant G-M's analysis,
# so this is not sanded toward zero. Does not cover: the survival evidence (step 8's job).
# Confidence: low; this fraction is the cluster's main driver and an honest guess.
frac_log_range_fast = 0.35 # right iff ~a third of the a-priori-plausible log-timescale range for D>=5 scenarios lies below 5 Gyr
w_danger = w_no_risk * frac_log_range_fast / (1 - frac_log_range_fast) # ~0.54 : 1 odds vs H-2
# H-6 residual — a fate neither member expresses: e.g. significant but sub-catastrophic damage,
# or a trapping/accretion regime outside the bracket the literature analyzed. Concretely: a BH
# that hollows out a lethal-but-not-terminal cavity, or exotic charged-remnant dynamics nobody
# modeled. In novel-physics questions carved into a stark binary like this, the truth falls
# outside the two named outcomes non-negligibly often — but the binary here is close to a
# dichotomy on "macroscopic damage within solar lifetime", so the miss rate is modest.
w_residual = 0.2 # ~0.2 : 1 vs H-2; ~11-12% of mass once normalised — its own argued weight, not a leftover
prior("HC-1", [w_danger, w_no_risk, w_residual])