Could white holes actually exist?

white light spreading out from the center surrounded by stars.
White holes are theoretical cosmic regions that function in an opposite way to black holes. (Image credit: seyfettinozel via Getty Images)

Black holes seem to get all the attention. But what about their mirror twins, white holes? Do they exist? And, if so, where are they? 

To understand the nature of white holes, first we have to examine the much more familiar black holes. Black holes are regions of complete gravitational collapse, where  gravity has overwhelmed all other forces in the universe and compressed a clump of material all the way down to an infinitely tiny point known as a singularity. Surrounding that singularity is an event horizon, which is not a physical, solid boundary, but simply the border around a singularity where the gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.

We know how the universe forms black holes. When a massive star dies, its immense weight crushes onto its core, triggering the creation of a black hole. Any matter or radiation that wanders too close to the black hole gets trapped by the strong gravity and pulled beneath the event horizon to its ultimate doom.

Related: What happens at the center of a black hole?

We understand this process of black hole formation, and how black holes interact with their environments, through Einstein's theory of general relativity. To arrive at the concept of a white hole, we have to recognize that general relativity doesn't care about the flow of time. The equations are time-symmetric, meaning the math works perfectly fine running forward or backward in time.

So if we were to take a movie of the formation of a black hole and run it in reverse, we would find an object streaming radiation and particles. Eventually, it would explode, leaving behind a massive star. This is a white hole, and according to general relativity, this scenario is perfectly fine.

White holes would be even stranger than black holes. They would still have singularities at their centers and event horizons at their borders. They would still be massive, gravitating objects. But any material that entered a white hole would immediately get ejected at a speed greater than that of light, causing the white glow to shine ferociously. Anything on the outside of a white hole would never be able to get inside it, because it would have to travel faster than the speed of light to cross inward through the event horizon.

But if white holes are allowed by the math of general relativity, then why don't we suspect that they exist in the real universe? The answer is that general relativity is not the only word on the cosmos. There are other branches of physics that tell us about the inner workings of the universe, like our theories of electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

Within thermodynamics, there is the concept of entropy, which is, very roughly speaking, a measure of the disorder in a system. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of closed systems can only go up. In other words, disorder always increases.

As an example, say you throw a piano into a wood chipper. Out comes a bunch of pulverized debris. Disorder in the system has increased, and the second law of thermodynamics has been satisfied. But if you throw a bunch of random pieces into that same wood chipper, you won't get a fully formed piano out of it, because that would cause disorder to decrease. (Highly ordered systems, like life, can arise on Earth — but they come at the cost of increased entropy within the sun. You're still not getting pianos out of wood chippers, no matter how you construct your system.)

We can't simply run the process of black hole formation in reverse and get a white hole, because that would cause entropy to decrease — stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions. So, while general relativity is agnostic about the reality of white holes, thermodynamics gives the concept a hard no.

The only way to form a white hole would be to have some exotic process operating in the early universe that baked the existence of a white hole into the fabric of space-time itself. That way, the white hole formation process would bypass the trouble with decreasing the entropy — the white hole would simply be there, existing, since the beginning of time.

The Event Horizon Telescope, a planet-scale array of eight ground-based radio telescopes forged through international collaboration, captured this image of the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy M87 and its shadow. Here M87 is viewed in polarized light.  (Image credit: EHT Collaboration)

Unfortunately, white holes would also be fantastically unstable. They would still gravitate and pull material toward them, but nothing would be able to cross the event horizons. As soon as anything, even a single photon (particle of light) approached a white hole, it would be doomed. If the particle approached the event horizon, it would not be able to cross it, sending the energy of the system skyrocketing. Eventually, the particle would have so much energy that it would trigger the collapse of the white hole into a black hole, ending its existence.

So, as fun and mind-bending as white holes appear to be, they do not seem to be features of the real universe — just ghosts haunting the mathematics of general relativity.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Paul Sutter
Space.com Contributor

Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!" podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.

  • quokka
    Isn't the big bang a white hole...or the opposite of a black hole just regular space?
    Reply
  • riverrat
    "stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions" that being said then please explain the big bang theory a little better for me exactly how did everything else come to be from a single gigantic cosmic explosion except stars? Also could a black hole possibly tare a hole in the fabric of the universe and be an entrance to another universe, enter a black hole come out of a white hole? Everything seems to be about balance matter and dark matter, gravity and antigravity and so forth. So why not a black hole being a one way ticket to the universe's counter part exit the white hole on the other side to....... somewhere?
    Reply
  • akademy
    Interesting to note that we often make pianos from leftover trees...

    But are we saying that order on Earth is offset by choas in the Sun? If so, why isn't order in a White hole just "offset" by a Black hole, or something else?
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    This article seems to be based on some logical inconsistencies.

    For example, if you think about "running time backwards" to make a black how a white hole, then, to be consistent, you need to run the other physical laws in reverse, too, including entropy. And, when we try to think about doing that, we need to rethink what we call "order" and "natural laws".
    Reply
  • Recce1
    riverrat said:
    "stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions" that being said then please explain the big bang theory a little better for me exactly how did everything else come to be from a single gigantic cosmic explosion except stars? Also could a black hole possibly tare a hole in the fabric of the universe and be an entrance to another universe, enter a black hole come out of a white hole? Everything seems to be about balance matter and dark matter, gravity and antigravity and so forth. So why not a black hole being a one way ticket to the universe's counter part exit the white hole on the other side to....... somewhere?
    Good question. As whole or complete stars wouldn't appear out of white holes, wouldn't white holes spew out sub-atomic particles to be clumped by gravity to become hydrogen and then stars over time, as black holes do the opposite and dismantle matter to sub-atomic particles over time before being absorbed into a singularity?

    Haven't theorists predicted that our entire universe will eventually become one super black hole due to entropy? Where would it go, let alone be? So I like your implication that singularities might at some point spew their "energy" into a different dimension to eventually become a universe filled with stars, i.e., another "big bang". Of course, wouldn't it first take our universe becoming that one super singularity?
    Reply
  • skynr13
    Firstly, - taking the formation of a black hole and run it in reverse, would create an object streaming radiation and particles. Eventually, it would explode, leaving behind a massive star. This is a white hole, - No it's not a white hole, but a common star or neutron star. You're confusing the two to postulate something that does not exist.They would still have singularities at their centers, - As stars do, there core, and event horizons at their borders, - The stars corona. They would still be massive, gravitating objects, -Just like the sun is today. But any material that entered a white hole would immediately get ejected at a speed greater than that of light, causing the white glow to shine ferociously, -Just like a neutron star? And faster than the speed of light would be against the laws of General Relativity.Say you throw a piano into a wood chipper. Out comes a bunch of pulverized debris. Disorder in the system has increased, and the second law of thermodynamics has been satisfied. But if you throw a bunch of random pieces into that same wood chipper, you won't get a fully formed piano out of it, because that would cause disorder to decrease. - What does this have to do with creating a white hole? You can't compare something so simple, as throwing wood into a chipper to something that is highly complex, too many variables are left out. Highly ordered systems, like life, can arise on Earth — but they come at the cost of increased entropy within the sun. So again how does life on Earth come at increased entropy within the sun? Increased entropy on the sun would possibly cause life to not exist. Please stop comparing apples to oranges!Stars don't miraculously appear out of gigantic cosmic explosions. - They don't?!The only way to form a white hole would be to have some exotic process operating in the early universe that baked the existence of a white hole into the fabric of space-time itself. That way, the white hole formation process would bypass the trouble with decreasing the entropy — the white hole would simply be there, existing, since the beginning of time. - Now you're getting somewhere!
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I think the whole premise of making a white hole by "running time backwards" in the current universe that we can observe is very highly flawed in its logic, and is not the only way that something like a white hole might occur in General Relativity.

    First, the Big Bang Theory, if it is correct, says that our universe came out of what could be described as a white hole. The energy density and any fundamental particles are postulated to have come from a "singularity" or something very indistinguishable from one. That is the "coming out" from a white hole of what we think ends up as the center of a black hole. And, we know "the rest of the story" about how that material evolved to become our universe. That story involves the creation of the 3 spatial dimensions and the time dimension from what is impossible to distinguish from a point. And, it involves creation of "space" at speeds faster than the speed of light, called "inflation". So, yes, there has been a "white hole" in our universe, at least according to "the leading theory" of how our universe was created.

    How that "white hole" is related to the black holes that we see today in our universe is open to even more speculation than the BBT involves. Maybe each black hole we see creates new space inside it in dimensions that we cannot detect? Or, is space so malleable and "relativistic" that whole universes can be created at the centers of black holes in the same 3 dimensions that we can detect, in such a manner that observers inside them perceive them as extremely large, while observers outside them perceive them as infinitesimal?

    These type of concepts are definitely mind-bending - because we really are not good at understanding "space-bending" or "time warping", much less space inflation or compression and time reversals.

    But, they are not any more "impossible" than the "running time backwards" concept that is used as the basis for this article. So, they would all need to be disproved in order to prove that white holes cannot exist.
    Reply
  • Tarzan322
    Unclear Engineer said:
    This article seems to be based on some logical inconsistencies.

    For example, if you think about "running time backwards" to make a black how a white hole, then, to be consistent, you need to run the other physical laws in reverse, too, including entropy. And, when we try to think about doing that, we need to rethink what we call "order" and "natural laws".
    I don't think you can run time backwards. That would create a paradox and paradox's don't seem to actually exist in nature. I don't even think time exist. We may use time as a reference, but there is no universal constant of time, and there is really no reason the universe at large requires time. The only thing the universe requires is decay, which is handled by entropy, and it happens to any object brought into the universe from the moment it arrives. This works well with Relativity because it helps to explain why gravity can cause an object to decay slower in a gravitational well of immense gravity. And everything decays, even us. So I think any consideration of time in any of this is just a wrong answer unless you are just trying to figure out how fast something is happening or how fast it is going, which are references. After all, time is always referenced to how we measure it here on Earth.
    Reply
  • Recce1
    Tarzan322 said:
    I don't think you can run time backwards. That would create a paradox and paradox's don't seem to actually exist in nature. I don't even think time exist. We may use time as a reference, but there is no universal constant of time, and there is really no reason the universe at large requires time. The only thing the universe requires is decay, which is handled by entropy, and it happens to any object brought into the universe from the moment it arrives. This works well with Relativity because it helps to explain why gravity can cause an object to decay slower in a gravitational well of immense gravity. And everything decays, even us. So I think any consideration of time in any of this is just a wrong answer unless you are just trying to figure out how fast something is happening or how fast it is going, which are references. After all, time is always referenced to how we measure it here on Earth.
    But what if TIME is a dimension just a fundamental as other dimensions are, with its own fundamental attributes?
    Reply
  • billslugg
    Time is a fundamental dimension with attrubutes:
    - It only goes in the forward direction.
    - Any two observers at different locations will be at different times.
    - Any two observers moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock tick slower than theirs.
    Reply