There is a physical limit to how fast a black hole can grow

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

Recorded sources

2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Astrophysical limits, such as the Eddington limit and associated radiative feedback, impose constraints on the maximum rate at which black holes can continuously accrete and grow.

The analysis

The claim that there is a physical limit to how fast a black hole can grow is supported by standard astrophysical concepts like the Eddington luminosity limit, which governs radiation pressure and accretion dynamics. Retrieved papers such as [3] and [9] discuss super-Eddington limits, accretion rates, and how feedback mechanisms restrict further growth, providing adequate support without significant contradictory evidence.

Evidence for · 2

Stratified wind from a super-Eddington X-ray binary is slower than expected.

Recorded source metadata

Stratified wind from a super-Eddington X-ray binary is slower than expected.. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09495-w

Paper [3] discusses Eddington limits and radiation pressure on black hole accretion, establishing physical boundaries on accretion rates.

Source citation format

See more details

More for · 1

Massive black holes beyond the Eddington limit

Recorded source metadata

Warren Massonneau. Massive black holes beyond the Eddington limit. https://doi.org/10.70675/c064e5f3z341az4b8bzb8d5z85ad3e5920b9

Paper [9] examines super-Eddington accretion and explains that rapid feedback mechanisms eventually restrict further black hole growth.

Source citation format

The paper trail · every fact has a biography

first checked01 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 7701 Aug 2026

More receipts

Is it true that Phonological evolution involves regular processes of phoneme elision, vowel nasalization, and tonogenesis?Is it true that Hemangiomas are treatable with medication?Is it true that Research identifies forms of intelligence that diverge from standard IQ measures?

Random receipt →The Trust Wiki →

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt