trailA black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
A rapidly accreting captured black hole would destroy its host star on timescales shorter than observed stellar ages.
Density scaling of accretion· for
White dwarf and neutron star interiors are vastly denser than terrestrial matter.
atomic
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
Eddington-limit objection· against
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
◌
◌
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
A black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
↑SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.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 →
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 →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.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. Click one to see its reasoning and open its page.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, 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 factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis 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 →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.