Posted: Oct 01, 2018 10:16 pm
Hawking radiation relies upon a blend of quantum mechanics and general relativity, that we already know are irreconcilable theories, in an environment that we've got absolutely no experience of. As such, it's not exactly a rock-solid scientific theory but rather a hypothesis without much in the way of supporting evidence. Until someone detects an evaporating black hole, it's basically just a highly impressive exercise in mathematics.
That said, I'm not too worried about particle accelerators generating micro black holes because they're not even remotely close to the energies that would be required to condense matter sufficiently to form them. Rather, you've got to engage in some similarly speculative physics, the evidence for which is even thinner on the ground than for Hawking radiation, and explain why the universe isn't already chock full of persistent micro black holes when such energies occur naturally in many places, e.g. supernovae and accretion discs.
That said, I'm not too worried about particle accelerators generating micro black holes because they're not even remotely close to the energies that would be required to condense matter sufficiently to form them. Rather, you've got to engage in some similarly speculative physics, the evidence for which is even thinner on the ground than for Hawking radiation, and explain why the universe isn't already chock full of persistent micro black holes when such energies occur naturally in many places, e.g. supernovae and accretion discs.