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 — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.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.