trailConsistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
Bounded growth caps radiated power· for
Evaporation of warped brane-world micro black holes outpaces accretion above a small critical mass
Brane-localized black holes in warped compactifications evaporate rather than remaining stable
✓
◌
◌
The tidal-charged metric is a valid effective description of brane-world micro black holes
Torsion-balance experiments bound extra-dimensional corrections to Newton's law to sub-millimeter scales
Plaga's formula objection· against
Giddings and Mangano's radiated-power estimate misapplies the Casadio–Harms model
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Consistent application of the Casadio–Harms model yields micro black-hole radiated power far below hazardous levels.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.88Credence, 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 →
1depended 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.