trailPlaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
A metastable black hole accreting matter at the Eddington limit would emit hazardous Hawking radiation.
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
Astrophysical bounds from stellar survival do not exclude metastable collider-produced black holes.
+3
Giddings–Mangano power-estimate critique· for
Plaga's scenario estimates metastable black-hole Hawking power at approximately 10^16 watts.
atomic
Consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
Evaporation of warped brane-world micro black holes outpaces accretion above a small critical mass
↑
◌
◌
Giddings and Mangano's radiated-power estimate misapplies the Casadio–Harms model
Corroboration by the framework's authors· for
In warped brane-world models, micro black holes cease growing far below catastrophic mass.
Stable micro black holes in warped extra-dimension scenarios could accrete to macroscopic mass within Earth's lifetime
✓
◌
Large extra dimension models predict TeV-scale black hole production at the LHC.
◌
Plaga's rejoinder· against
Plaga maintains his metastable black-hole risk scenario despite published rebuttals.
atomic
assumed
Plaga's metastable black-hole scenario adopts the Casadio–Harms quantum black-hole model.
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
↑SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →credence 0.80Credence, 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 →
6depended 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.