trailBlack 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.
Catastrophic growth does not occur in Plaga's metastable micro black hole scenario.
Same-physics coverage (Giddings–Mangano)· for
If TeV-scale black hole production is possible in particle collisions, cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would produce such black holes.
Cosmic ray collisions with Earth's atmosphere reach energies exceeding LHC collision energies.
◌
◌
Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays strike white dwarfs and neutron stars at astrophysically significant rates.
◌
◌
The highest-energy cosmic rays include a substantial proton fraction.
↑
◌
◌
Stable microscopic black holes produced by cosmic rays striking white dwarfs or neutron stars would be stopped inside those stars, whether charged or neutral.
Charged microscopic black holes are stopped in dense stellar matter by electromagnetic energy loss.
Gravitational and accretional energy loss stops neutral TeV-scale black holes inside white dwarfs.
◌
◌
A black hole accreting hazardously fast on Earth would accrete faster inside white dwarfs or neutron stars.
White dwarf and neutron star interiors are vastly denser than terrestrial matter.
Accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is limited by the Eddington luminosity.
◌
◌
Plaga's metastable black-hole risk scenario applies Hawking-radiation and accretion formulas inconsistently.
◌
◌
↑
+1 more
Plaga's observational-evasion counter· against
Eddington-limited accretion by metastable micro black holes would evade existing astrophysical observations.
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Black holes capable of Eddington-limited accretion and radiation are also subject to astrophysical retention bounds.
↑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 →
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.