>>7611916A white hole described scientifically? Don't expect a great explanation here in the first place. That said, a white hole is traditionally an object which has properties opposite to the black hole.
A black hole forces matter and energy in, while a white hole forces matter and energy out. The jury is out on what force might be defying the gravity of the matter coming out of a white hole. While the black hole is a gravity well that swallows stars hole, the white hole must exhibit some force that overcomes the gravity of the masses that come out of it while simultaneously not forcing the white hole apart. These two are contradictory, and if such an object is found, I'd like to hear what the community of actual physicists would say about it.
There's also an issue of how a white hole would be created. For a black hole, it's just that a massive object collapses into such a high density that no forms of matter that have volume can structurally resist the gravity so it collapses into a zero-volume form. For a white hole, some as-of-yet undetermined form would have to be created by an unknown process that results in a high-energy body composed of anti-gravity material. I'll go out on a limb by giving my own opinion, which is that if a black hole were to jettison material into another part of time and space, it wouldn't all go to the same point, to some single white hole object. The form of the white hole would be the opposite of a black hole, a sparse collection of different points in space and time where the black hole sent its feed to. The white hole wouldn't be any singular object at all, if only because there's no known force that would form it into a single object.
