4
$\begingroup$

I have created a planet called Betiler. I don't want Betiler to be in a classic space system like a star and some planets. So I put it around a white hole called Phulom. In my world, wormhole doesn't exist and a white hole is a black hole reversed according to the theory of Carlo Rovelli. So Phulom is a very young white hole which doesn't explode yet. Life have to be lush on Betiler then the conditions to creating it must be gathered.

To simply begin let's say that Betiler have to received light and heat. For the heat it's pretty simple I think, Phulom is a white hole and a white hole release energy even if it's a young one. Therefore, as long as the planet orbit around Phulom it will get heat on the surface. But there is a question :

  • Do a white hole release energy all around itself as a spherical way or more as a flat way ? Or just in one direction on a straight line ?

Then light is needed for creating life. However I want light glows only on specific places on the planet. I restricted myself to two areas. So I made searches and I discovered that auroras are creating by solar particles which cross the atmosphere from the magnetospheric cleft regions at the two magnetic poles.

  • Could it be possible to make light on the surface of Betiler like are creating auroras but with more energy to simulating a sunny day ?

Thank you for your future answers ;)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

A white hole wouldn't be terribly different than a star as far as how it radiates. It would radiate equally in all directions (unless it is rotating very rapidly) and it radiates like a blackbody, which is also how stars radiate.

So an issue that you face is the (unknown) relationship between its mass and its emissions. The emission rate defines a certain ranges of distances which will be the habitable zone. The mass determines how fast the planet revolves around the white hole.

Off-hand, there doesn't seem to be any strong reasons you couldn't have a stable orbit in the habitable zone.

So you main constraint would probably be the white hole's lifetime. I.e., does it have a short lifetime or a long one?

I'm not sure I understand the final part of the question about auroras.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I understand, but is there a relation between the emission rate and the mass ? Or can we just define a random mass and a random emission rate ? And above all, what could be the mass of a white hole ? $\endgroup$
    – P. Sauvage
    Apr 29, 2018 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ As a (never observed in nature, not requires by General Relativity, and entirely hypothetical) while hole is the inverse of a black hole, and black holes have a well-defined mass (arguably are nothing but mass) it seems likely that white holes would have masses, also. If I were you, I'd just assume they're whatever mass works for you and radiates as brightly as you need. No one can say you're wrong! $\endgroup$
    – Mark Olson
    Apr 29, 2018 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ For the white hole's lifetime, it has to leave time for the planet to create advanced species. Could it lasts a few million years ? I don't really know how many time live a white hole. $\endgroup$
    – P. Sauvage
    Apr 29, 2018 at 15:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Again, since white holes are hypothetical, you have a lot of flexibility. Pick the parameter you need, but don't over-explain. (The more you explain the details behind you white holes, the more likely you'll inadvertently contradict yourself.) $\endgroup$
    – Mark Olson
    Apr 29, 2018 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ From what I know about black holes is that they do spin rapidly, rapidly enough for people to believe we could shoot lasers in them and increase their energy level, and white holes are the inverse of black holes shouldn't they be spinning just as rapidly? $\endgroup$
    – Amoeba
    Apr 29, 2018 at 17:24
0
$\begingroup$

Since white holes may be identical to black holes, this situation is exactly the same as if the planet was orbiting a black hole.

Like black holes, white holes have properties like mass, charge, and angular momentum. They attract matter like any other mass, but objects falling towards a white hole would never actually reach the white hole's event horizon.

The white hole would the equivalent mass of a black hole. It would be able to orbit the white hole because this is a massive object. In fact, its mass would be the same as a black hole of the same size (and, therefore, the same mass).

In quantum mechanics, the black hole emits Hawking radiation and so can come to thermal equilibrium with a gas of radiation (not compulsory). Because a thermal-equilibrium state is time-reversal-invariant, Stephen Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium.2 This may imply that black holes and white holes are the same object. The Hawking radiation from an ordinary black hole is then identified with the white-hole emission.

This suggests the radiation emitted by a white hole will be the equivalent of Hawking radiation. This is hardly anything at all especially if the white. hole has any substantial mass. This means the equivalent of stellar masses and above.

Any planet relying on light and heat radiated from a white hole for the evolution of life there, will be effectively be dead planet. More energy will be received from starlight than its white hole.

Sources:White holes and Hawking radiation

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .