pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19839 · v1 · pith:7L32PDURnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-th

Constraining ADD black holes at the LHC with sqrt{s} = 14 TeV

Ashfaque Ahmad , Sudhir Kumar Gupta , Abbas Ali This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-th
keywords ADD modelmicroscopic black holesLHCextra dimensionsblack hole massformation lossconstraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

LHC data disfavors ADD black holes with masses up to 11.83 TeV for three extra dimensions when formation loss is zero.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper calculates constraints on the masses of microscopic black holes that might be produced in proton collisions at the LHC operating at 14 TeV. It uses the ADD model with extra dimensions and introduces a parameter ζ to model energy lost when the black hole forms. For zero loss and three extra dimensions with a reduced Planck scale near 1 TeV, the analysis finds that black holes lighter than 11.83 TeV are disfavored by the data at the given luminosity. These upper limits on mass decrease when formation loss is included or when the Planck scale is raised to 9 TeV. The results also cover the case of seven extra dimensions and provide 95 percent confidence level bounds.

Core claim

We explore microscopic black holes at the Large Hadron Collider in the context of the ADD model for the centre-of-mass energy √s = 14 TeV at an integrated luminosity of 349.4 fb^{-1} and provide constraints on the black hole mass MB by taking into account the effects of loss during the formation process of black holes through the parameter ζ. Our analysis reveals that for ζ = 0, black holes with MB ≤ 11.83 TeV are disfavored in the case of three extra dimensions, for the reduced Planck scale of about a TeV. The corresponding values for ΛD = 9 TeV turned out to be about 10.33 TeV. A significant reduction in the aforementioned limits is observed while the loss gets higher, e.g. for ζ = 0.35, M

What carries the argument

The parameter ζ that accounts for energy loss during black hole formation, used to adjust the production threshold in the ADD extra-dimension scenario.

If this is right

  • Excluded black hole masses decrease as the formation loss parameter ζ increases.
  • Raising the number of extra dimensions from three to seven increases the excluded mass values.
  • Higher reduced Planck scales result in lower excluded black hole masses.
  • The 95% C.L. limits are higher than the reported central values for the same parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If black holes are not observed, future LHC runs at higher luminosity could tighten these mass bounds further.
  • The model could be tested by searching for specific decay signatures predicted for these black holes.
  • Similar constraints might apply in other large extra dimension models beyond ADD.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the black-hole production cross-section and decay signatures in the ADD model, together with the single parameter ζ for formation loss, fully capture the observable signal without unaccounted detector or background effects at the stated luminosity.

What would settle it

An observation of black hole production events with masses below the stated limits in the LHC data would contradict the disfavoring of those masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19839 by Abbas Ali, Ashfaque Ahmad, Sudhir Kumar Gupta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Compactification radius Rc vs number of extra-dimensions D for different values of the ΛD = 1, 10 and 100 TeV. For sufficiently large values of Rc, the fundamental Planck scale can be dramatically lowered from its usual four-dimensional value of approximately MPl ∼ 1016 TeV to values of only a few TeV [37]. As a result, gravitational effects become significant, and black holes could form at the LHC [38]. 3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Life-time of black hole vs MB (top) and ΛD (bottom) for ζ = 0 for D = 3, 5, and 7, respectively. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Production cross-section versus ΛD for dimensions D = 3 (top), 5 (middle), and 7 (bottom) for ζ = 0, ζ = 0.25, and ζ = 0.35. The impact of ζ is also visible in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Production cross-section versus ΛD for D = 3, 5, and 7, at values MB = 5, 7, and 9 TeV with ζ = 0 (top) and ζ = 0.25 (bottom). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (TeV) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M B ( T e V ) = 3 K = 2 No Loss 15% 25% 35% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (TeV) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M B ( T e V ) = 5 K = 2 No Loss 15% 25% 35% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (TeV) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M B ( T e V ) = 7 K = 2… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exclusion curves in the MB - ΛD plane for D = 3, D = 5 and D = 7 with different values of ζ. The solid lines indicate constant ratios K = MB/ΛD. We now compute the exclusion limits on the black hole mass MB across the various values of ΛD, D, and ζ. These exclusion limits are obtained at a CM energy √ s = 14 TeV and an integrated luminosity of R Ldt = 349.4 fb−1 , corresponding to a 95% C.L. The obtained e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore microscopic black holes at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in the context of the ADD model for the centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 14~\mathrm{TeV}$ at an integrated luminosity of $349.4~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ and provide constraints on the black hole mass, $M_{\mathrm{B}}$ by taking into account the effects of loss during the formation process of black holes through the parameter $\zeta$. Our analysis reveals that for $\zeta = 0$, black holes with $M_{\mathrm{B}} \leq 11.83~\mathrm{TeV}$ are disfavored in the case of three extra dimensions ($\mathcal{D}$), for the reduced Planck scale ($\Lambda_{\mathcal{D}}$) of about a TeV. The corresponding values for $\Lambda_{\mathcal{D}} = 9~\mathrm{TeV}$ turned out to be about $10.33~\mathrm{TeV}$. A significant reduction in the aforementioned limits is observed while the loss gets higher, e.g. for $\zeta = 0.35$, $M_{\mathrm{B}}$ reduces to $7.65 (6.82)~\mathrm{TeV}$ at $\Lambda_{\mathcal{D}} = 1 (9)~\mathrm{TeV}$. These limits change to $12.03 ~(10.88)~\mathrm{TeV}$ and $7.80~ (7.03)~\mathrm{TeV}$ respectively for $\zeta = 0~(0.35)$ for $\Lambda_{\mathcal{D}} = 1 (9)~\mathrm{TeV}$ at 95\% C.L. in case $\mathcal{D}$ is raised to seven.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper explores microscopic black holes in the ADD model at the LHC with √s = 14 TeV and 349.4 fb^{-1} integrated luminosity. It incorporates a loss parameter ζ during black hole formation and reports specific exclusion limits on the black hole mass MB, such as MB ≤ 11.83 TeV for ζ = 0, D = 3, ΛD ≈ 1 TeV (with reductions to 7.65 TeV at ζ = 0.35), and corresponding values at 95% C.L. for D = 7 and ΛD = 9 TeV.

Significance. If the numerical limits are correctly derived, the results would provide updated constraints on ADD model parameters (D and ΛD) using current LHC luminosity, with the ζ parameter allowing exploration of formation effects. This could be relevant for interpreting null results in black hole searches, though the overall impact depends on verification of the underlying analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central numerical limits on MB (e.g., 11.83 TeV for ζ=0, D=3, ΛD≈1 TeV and 7.65 TeV for ζ=0.35) are stated without any derivation, cross-section formula, acceptance calculation, background estimation procedure, or error propagation. This is load-bearing for the claim, as the translation from model parameters to exclusion thresholds requires these steps to be valid at the quoted luminosity.
  2. The analysis assumes the ζ-modified geometric cross-section plus decay signatures fully determine the observable rates without unaccounted backgrounds or detector effects. No information is given on how backgrounds are modeled or subtracted, which directly affects whether the quoted MB thresholds hold if backgrounds are non-negligible.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation ϒ for the number of extra dimensions is non-standard and should be defined explicitly on first use for clarity.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract reports limits both with and without the 95% C.L. qualifier; consistency in presentation of the confidence level across all quoted values would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and comments on our manuscript. We address the major points below regarding the presentation of limits and background assumptions, and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central numerical limits on MB (e.g., 11.83 TeV for ζ=0, D=3, ΛD≈1 TeV and 7.65 TeV for ζ=0.35) are stated without any derivation, cross-section formula, acceptance calculation, background estimation procedure, or error propagation. This is load-bearing for the claim, as the translation from model parameters to exclusion thresholds requires these steps to be valid at the quoted luminosity.

    Authors: The abstract is necessarily concise, but the full manuscript derives the quoted MB limits from the ζ-modified geometric cross-section (detailed in Section 2), integrated with parton luminosities at √s=14 TeV, and sets the threshold where the expected yield falls below the 95% CL exclusion for 349.4 fb^{-1} assuming Poisson statistics with zero events. Acceptance is taken near unity for the high-multiplicity final states considered, with no additional error propagation beyond luminosity. We will revise the abstract to reference the cross-section formula and exclusion criterion used. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [—] The analysis assumes the ζ-modified geometric cross-section plus decay signatures fully determine the observable rates without unaccounted backgrounds or detector effects. No information is given on how backgrounds are modeled or subtracted, which directly affects whether the quoted MB thresholds hold if backgrounds are non-negligible.

    Authors: This is a phenomenological study that computes the mass at which the production rate becomes unobservable at the stated luminosity, under the standard assumption for such high-mass searches that SM backgrounds are negligible (or have already been accounted for in referenced experimental results). No full detector simulation or background subtraction is performed, as the focus is on the model-dependent cross-section modified by ζ. We will add an explicit paragraph in the revised text discussing this assumption, its validity in the high-mass regime, and the fact that non-zero backgrounds would weaken the limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; limits are conditional on model parameters without self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper computes exclusion limits on MB as functions of the free parameter ζ (varied at discrete values 0 and 0.35) and D, using the standard ADD geometric cross-section modified by ζ. No equation or step equates a derived quantity back to its own input by construction, no fitted subset is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The numerical thresholds (e.g., MB ≤ 11.83 TeV) follow from applying the model cross-section, multiplicity, and acceptance to the stated luminosity; these steps remain independent of the target result itself. The dependence on ζ is explicit and does not constitute circularity under the defined patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on the validity of the ADD black-hole production formula at TeV scales and on the phenomenological treatment of formation loss via ζ; both are domain assumptions without new supporting evidence in the abstract.

free parameters (3)
  • ζ
    Energy-loss fraction during black-hole formation; varied from 0 to 0.35 to produce different limits.
  • ΛD
    Reduced Planck scale; set to 1 TeV or 9 TeV.
  • D
    Number of extra dimensions; set to 3 or 7.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption ADD model permits microscopic black-hole production at LHC energies when ΛD is near the TeV scale.
    Invoked to justify the existence of the signal being constrained.
  • standard math Integrated luminosity of 349.4 fb^{-1} at √s = 14 TeV is the relevant exposure for exclusion.
    Used directly to translate non-observation into mass limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5848 in / 1392 out tokens · 25679 ms · 2026-06-26T17:20:22.289772+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 33 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B716, 1-29 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B716, 30-61 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

  3. [3]

    Susskind, Phys

    L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D20, 2619-2625 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.2619 1979

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D13, 974-996 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.1277

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.19.1277 1976

  5. [5]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.44.912 1980

  6. [6]

    Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279-390 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005

  7. [7]

    A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109-L113 (2006) doi:10.1086/508162 [arXiv:astro-ph/0608407 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/508162 2006

  8. [8]

    New Dimensions at a Millimeter to a Fermi and Superstrings at a TeV

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B436, 257-263 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00860-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398 [hep-ph]]. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00860-0 1998

  9. [9]

    The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B429, 263-272 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00466-3 1998

  10. [10]

    Search for Extra Dimensions in diphoton events using proton-proton collisions recorded at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], New J. Phys.15, 043007 (2013) doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/4/043007 [arXiv:1210.8389 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/4/043007 2013

  11. [11]

    Search for large extra dimensions in dimuon and dielectron events in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B711, 15-34 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.029 [arXiv:1202.3827 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.029 2012

  12. [12]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP07, 208 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)208 [arXiv:2103.02708 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2021)208 2021

  13. [13]

    V. M. Abazovet al.[D0], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 251802 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.251802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0302014 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.251802 2003

  14. [14]

    Nonspherical Gravitational Collapse: A Short Review,

    K. S. Thorne, “Nonspherical Gravitational Collapse: A Short Review,” in J. R. Klauder (ed.), Magic Without Magic: John Archibald Wheeler, Freeman, San Francisco (1972), pp. 231–258

    1972

  15. [15]

    Black hole and brane production in TeV gravity: A review

    M. Cavaglia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18, 1843-1882 (2003) doi:10.1142/S0217751X03013569 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210296 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0217751x03013569 2003

  16. [16]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys.46, 206 (1976)] doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  17. [17]

    Black Holes at the LHC

    S. Dimopoulos and G. L. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 161602 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.161602 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.161602 2001

  18. [18]

    S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D65, 056010 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.056010 2002

  19. [19]

    Black Holes at the LHC

    P. Kanti, Lect. Notes Phys.769, 387-423 (2009) doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88460-6_10 [arXiv:0802.2218 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88460-6_10 2009

  20. [20]

    G. L. Landsberg, [arXiv:hep-ph/0211043 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B774, 279-307 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053 [arXiv:1705.01403 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053 2017

  22. [22]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP11, 042 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)042 [arXiv:1805.06013 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)042 2018

  23. [23]

    M. V. Savina, Phys. Atom. Nucl.74, 496-504 (2011) doi:10.1134/S1063778811020190

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063778811020190 2011

  24. [24]

    M. V. Savina [CMS], Phys. Atom. Nucl.76, 1090-1099 (2013) doi:10.1134/S1063778813090160

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063778813090160 2013

  25. [25]

    M. V. Savina, Phys. Atom. Nucl.78, no.4, 532-536 (2015) doi:10.1134/S1063778815030102

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063778815030102 2015

  26. [26]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2604.10732 [hep-ex]]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], [arXiv:2604.10732 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D109, no.3, 032010 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.032010 [arXiv:2307.14967 [hep-ex]]. 11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.032010 2024

  28. [28]

    T. A. Vami and D. Zhang, [arXiv:2511.10662 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], [arXiv:2604.19495 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], [arXiv:2604.19495 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Brüning and M

    O. Brüning and M. Zerlauth, [arXiv:2505.03535 [physics.acc-ph]]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    Phenomenology, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Theories with Sub-Millimeter Dimensions and TeV Scale Quantum Gravity

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D59, 086004 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.086004 [arXiv:hep-ph/9807344 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.086004 1999

  32. [32]

    What we (don't) know about black hole formation in high-energy collisions

    V. Cardoso, E. Berti and M. Cavaglia, Class. Quant. Grav.22, L61-R84 (2005) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/12/L01 [arXiv:hep-ph/0505125 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/12/l01 2005

  33. [33]

    C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Kapner, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D70, 042004 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.042004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405262 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.042004 2004

  34. [34]

    J. C. Long and J. C. Price, Comptes Rendus Physique4, 337-346 (2003) doi:10.1016/S1631-0705(03)00042-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303057 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s1631-0705(03)00042-2 2003

  35. [35]

    G. L. Landsberg [CDF and D0], eConfC040802, MOT006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0412028 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Gamma rays from the Galactic bulge and large extra dimensions

    M. Casse, J. Paul, G. Bertone and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 111102 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.111102 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309173 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.111102 2004

  37. [37]

    Planck-scale physics: facts and beliefs

    D. Meschini, Found. Sci.12, 277-294 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10699-006-9102-3 [arXiv:gr-qc/0601097 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s10699-006-9102-3 2007

  38. [38]

    Banks and W

    T. Banks and W. Fischler, [arXiv:hep-th/9906038 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Black hole particle emission in higher-dimensional spacetimes

    V. Cardoso, M. Cavaglia and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 071301 (2006) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 219902 (2006)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.071301 [arXiv:hep-th/0512002 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.071301 2006

  40. [40]

    Black hole formation in the head-on collision of ultrarelativistic charges

    H. Yoshino and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D74, 044003 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044003 [arXiv:gr-qc/0605131 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.044003 2006

  41. [41]

    D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D66, 044011 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.044011 [arXiv:gr-qc/0201034 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.044011 2002

  42. [42]

    Black hole formation in the grazing collision of high-energy particles

    H. Yoshino and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D67, 024009 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.024009 [arXiv:gr-qc/0209003 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.024009 2003

  43. [43]

    D. C. Dai, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, C. Issever, E. Rizvi and J. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D77, 076007 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.076007 [arXiv:0711.3012 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.076007 2008

  44. [44]

    Black Holes in Theories with Large Extra Dimensions: a Review

    P. Kanti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 4899-4951 (2004) doi:10.1142/S0217751X04018324 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402168 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0217751x04018324 2004

  45. [45]

    S. C. Park, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 617-650 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.03.004 [arXiv:1203.4683 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.03.004 2012

  46. [46]

    Micro black holes in the laboratory

    M. Bleicher, P. Nicolini, M. Sprenger and E. Winstanley, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E20S2, 7-14 (2011) doi:10.1142/S0218301311040529 [arXiv:1111.0657 [hep-th]]. 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218301311040529 2011

  47. [47]

    Mandrik [CMS], EPJ Web Conf.191, 02009 (2018) doi:10.1051/epjconf/201819102009 [arXiv:1808.09915 [hep-ex]]

    P. Mandrik [CMS], EPJ Web Conf.191, 02009 (2018) doi:10.1051/epjconf/201819102009 [arXiv:1808.09915 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/201819102009 2018

  48. [48]

    D. C. Dai, C. Issever, E. Rizvi, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic and J. Tseng, Comput. Phys. Commun.236, 285-301 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.10.021 [arXiv:0902.3577 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.10.021 2019

  49. [49]

    Hossenfelder, [arXiv:hep-ph/0412265 [hep-ph]]

    S. Hossenfelder, [arXiv:hep-ph/0412265 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Lett. B533, 153-161 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01589-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201248 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)01589-7 2002

  51. [51]

    S. D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B555, 92-98 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00012-1 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203154 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(03)00012-1 2003

  52. [52]

    Black Holes Radiate Mainly on the Brane

    R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 499-502 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.499 [arXiv:hep-th/0003118 [hep-th]]. 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.499 2000