Photon trapping and Bondi accretion
The argument
The Eddington luminosity caps accretion only when photons can diffuse outward through the inflow fast enough to push back on it. Because linked claim, no such outward radiation pressure develops in the interiors of white dwarfs and neutron stars, where the flow is optically thick and matter pressure is dominated by degeneracy rather than radiation. Consequently linked claim, at rates that for micro black hole masses vastly exceed the Eddington rate, so accretion inside dense stars is not Eddington-limited.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- 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 →Radiation from a micro black hole accreting inside dense stellar matter is trapped and advected inward with the accretion flow
- 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 →Micro black holes captured inside neutron stars or white dwarfs accrete at approximately the Bondi rate
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Jul 19, 2026
The inference is sound: if radiation cannot escape outward against the inflow, the mechanism behind the Eddington limit is absent, and the accretion rate defaults to what gravity and ambient pressure allow. The argument rests almost entirely on radiation being trapped and advected inward in dense stellar matter, which is standard optically-thick accretion physics; Bondi-rate accretion inside neutron stars and white dwarfs is then both a consequence and an independently confirmed finding of numerical studies. Neither premise has yet been assessed as a node, but the direct evidence for both is strong and no credible analysis disputes them.