trailEddington-limited accretion by metastable micro black holes would evade existing astrophysical observations.
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
Plaga's Eddington-limit mechanism· for
Accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is limited by the Eddington luminosity.
Radiation from a micro black hole accreting inside dense stellar matter is trapped and advected inward with the accretion flow
◌
◌
◌
Micro black holes captured inside neutron stars or white dwarfs accrete at approximately the Bondi rate
◌
◌
Giddings–Mangano inconsistency objection· against
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
Plaga's metastable black-hole scenario adopts the Casadio–Harms quantum black-hole model.
Plaga's scenario estimates metastable black-hole Hawking power at approximately 10^16 watts.
Consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
↑
◌
In warped brane-world models, micro black holes cease growing far below catastrophic mass.
↑
✓
+1
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Eddington-limited accretion by metastable micro black holes would evade existing astrophysical observations.
✕ContradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →credence 0.05Credence, 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 →
2depended 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.