trailA rapidly accreting captured black hole would destroy its host star on timescales shorter than observed stellar ages.
Survival of white dwarfs and neutron stars constrains TeV-scale black hole accretion rates.
Bondi-rate consumption in dense matter· for
Micro black holes captured inside neutron stars or white dwarfs accrete at approximately the Bondi rate
For micro black holes accreting in white-dwarf or neutron-star matter, the photon trapping radius far exceeds the Bondi radius
Radiation from a micro black hole accreting inside dense stellar matter is trapped and advected inward with the accretion flow
◌
◌
General-relativistic simulations of black holes accreting inside neutron stars find Bondi-type accretion rates proportional to the horizon area
Stellar rotation imparts enough angular momentum to slow a captured black hole's accretion well below the Bondi rate
Old white dwarfs and neutron stars are observed to survive for billions of years
atomic
A black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
White dwarf and neutron star interiors are vastly denser than terrestrial matter.
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
◌
◌
↑
Eddington throttling objection· against
Accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is limited by the Eddington luminosity.
shared · shown elsewhere
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
A rapidly accreting captured black hole would destroy its host star on timescales shorter than observed stellar ages.
↑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 →
1depended 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. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.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.