>>12384384White holes have never been demonstrated beyond a purely theoretical.
But if a star was a white hole, then we would see a number of features which would indicate that rather than going through the processes that a star does go through, it is instead doing the opposite, that is, the composition is not changing over time, and the mass increases.
And we have begun to expand our abilities to understand other stars to the point where we can actually begin calculating the radial size of stars and their mass properties.
I'll use my personal favorite, betelgeuse as an example of this.
Betelgeuse is an old red giant star, with a lot of mass, and will likely go supernova in the next 95000 years. It is also shedding mass
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.10463.pdfOn top of that, we have been able to actually take pictures of Betelgeuse.
https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1726a/And its composition.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2009/31/aa12247-09/aa12247-09.htmlWith this in mind, we now have the basics to begin to test the hypothesis.
Now, based on the data, we see the following: A reduction of hydrogen and an increase in helium. We also see heavier metals appearing and becoming more prominant. Showing that the core is fusing heavier atoms than hydrogen. This means that there is not a hydrogen core at the center of Betelgeuse anymore. Further, we see that it is throwing off dust and other particles and losing mass steadily. We are also seeing it deform as a result of these events.
So we can conclude then that Betegeuse is losing mass and not gaining any more mass.
Which means that we are forced to discard the white hole hypothesis.
It's a great idea. But we have to follow the data to wherever it may lead and discard ideas that don't best explain the observations along the way.
