Jump to content

What would be the easiest way to OBLITERATE THE ENTIRE PLANET?


Kerbface
 Share

Recommended Posts

Destroying the earth may be easier than most people think, now I'm going to start off by saying I'm not a trained professional by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know a little bit about physics and I think I have one that's within our technological reach (not developed fully but could be if this was for whatever reason necessary[don't ask me why]), but basically the concept revolves around essentially creating a micro-singularity(miniature black hole) and forcing it to the center of the earth, which would cause the core to collapse and (atleast hypothetically) cause the crust to either get thrown off into space or collapse inwards...

So problems=

1.Creating a micro-singularity (miniature black hole)

Surprisingly... not really that far out of our grasp, we already know that the LHC is capable of producing black holes not even remotely strong enough to destroy anything at all mind you, and they dissipate so fast that it's as if they were never there, but that's not all we know for a fact that we can use magnetic fields to crush matter together to fuse, so all we really need is a massively scaled up Fusion reactor(like this) with additional power or... a massively scaled up version of the LHC to accommodate now this will certainly require some effort to fine tune, but it's most certainly not outside of our reach.

2. Stabilizing the micro-singularity to avoid premature dissipation. For this all we really need to do is scale up, more material, more energy... essentially a larger black hole should do the trick.. how large is problem... but not my problem... I'm sure if (for whatever reason) we're doing this, that we're using the top scientists and well... they'll figure it out

3. Getting it to the center of the earth... This I'm not sure about, my assumption is that it'll sorta pull itself down there and that gravity will do a damn good job of pulling it in, but the most mass it accumulates the more matter will actually distance itself, so we may end up (if I'm not overthinking this) with a sorta bowling ball finger hole in the side of the earth. So once the black holes formed we may have to give it a good magnetic kick in the pants to get it to the core.

4. Once at the core.. we run into another problem... keeping it there and can we make it large enough to cause the core to collapse as opposed to just boring a nice big tunnel, again I Suspect gravity may be a help here, but for stopping it... perhaps just let it go and let the accumulating mass slow it down... or potentially send two down in such a manner that they gravitational interact and launch themselves off in opposite directions (hopefully the increased mass from the 2nd pass would cause them to crash into each other on the 2nd pass)

5. Motivation... Because F**k you, that's why!

and finally we have it we 'should' have made the earth essentially go either nova or black hole-i-fied

Edited by RaGeZorZ
Minor Grammatical/Spelling errors fixed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any theoretical power demand numbers for a massive LHC? I think that's probably what would put that idea out of our reach for a good while. Iirc, the singularity would also need to be massive enough to overcome local gravity, not just consume matter, so you need a really big massive LHC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any theoretical power demand numbers for a massive LHC? I think that's probably what would put that idea out of our reach for a good while. Iirc, the singularity would also need to be massive enough to overcome local gravity, not just consume matter, so you need a really big massive LHC.

Hey I was talking within Human capabilities, the LHC is only one possibility, the fusion reactor is probably more likely.. It'd Be a massive undertaking regardless, but it's a metric ****tonne easier than deorbiting a moon (for example) you're right it would (sorta) have to overcome local gravity, but that's why I suggested sending it to the core, so that the local gravity would actually be assisting it (similar to how removing the sand from the bottom of an ant-lion pit drags the sand around it down) But that being said being a black hole means it's compressed enough that it would easily overcome the local gravity if put in close enough proximity and the larger it gets the the more stable it becomes, by the time it reaches the core it should be sufficiently large enough to withstand the gravity pulling from all sides without much hindrance, again, exact numbers are not my problem... simply proposing a broad solution to a complex, and specific problem. Further still I wasn't thinking economically feasible, like the xkcd What if?'s I was thinking, hypothetically

Edited by RaGeZorZ
added comical references
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say as a disclaimer that I'm not a trained physicist either, but anyway:

Surprisingly... not really that far out of our grasp, we already know that the LHC is capable of producing black holes not even remotely strong enough to destroy anything at all mind you, and they dissipate so fast that it's as if they were never there, but that's not all we know for a fact that we can use magnetic fields to crush matter together to fuse, so all we really need is a massively scaled up Fusion reactor(like this)

The problem with Tokamak fusion reactors like this is that, as far as I know, they fuse particles by making them very fast, and colliding one on another, so it would be difficult to contain. And they're one-on-one collisions, which immediatly dissolve.

Edited by Brenok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exact numbers are not my problem... simply proposing a broad solution to a complex, and specific problem. Further still I wasn't thinking economically feasible, like the xkcd What if?'s I was thinking, hypothetically

That bit was actually just genuine curiosity on my part. The idea has been mentioned a couple times here, or at least references to LHC and black holes in some way. Kinda wonder what it would actually take, if it's even capable of going massive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say as a disclaimer that I'm not a trained physicist either, but anyway:

The problem with Tokamak fusion reactors like this is that, as far as I know, they fuse particles by making them very fast, and colliding one on another, so it would be difficult to contain. And they're one-on-one collisions, which immediatly dissolve.

Correct... however

so all we really need is a massively scaled up Fusion reactor(like this) with additional power or... a massively scaled up version of the LHC to accommodate now this will certainly require some effort to fine tune, but it's most certainly not outside of our reach.

Further still. There are other

, similar to those
for other applications, which are not as specific. Edited by RaGeZorZ
Cleaned up references
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there's still the problem that fusion itself is very brief. The atoms collide, fuse, liberate energy and immediatly break up. I don't think someone could make a black hole on something similar to a fusion reactor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, there's still the problem that fusion itself is very brief. The atoms collide, fuse, liberate energy and immediatly break up. I don't think someone could make a black hole on something similar to a fusion reactor.

well, just like unexplained fires... that's a matter for the courts

But you sir are right, and again I point out if we put all our top minds on it I bet we could come up with something we are after all working with hypothetically all of earths resources

Edited by RaGeZorZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, one can create a wormhole, put one end in the Earth's core, and send the other into the sun. Earth will explode, and the Sun will be sucked inside out.

Now, with the idea of turning the Earth into a black hole, this is easy enough, but the black hole will still technically be a planet, as it will have "cleared the neighborhood", orbit the sun, and "be round". The Earth will be "destroyed", but it will still be a planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, one can create a wormhole, put one end in the Earth's core, and send the other into the sun. Earth will explode, and the Sun will be sucked inside out.

Now, with the idea of turning the Earth into a black hole, this is easy enough, but the black hole will still technically be a planet, as it will have "cleared the neighborhood", orbit the sun, and "be round". The Earth will be "destroyed", but it will still be a planet.

well if ya want to go with technicalities, then the easiest way is just simply to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon further thought... I think the idea a singularity has to overcome local gravity was a serious misstep in my logic... Considering "singularity" sort of means pinpoint infinite density, to be a black hole in the first place would already overcome it. Meaning it *can* be just big enough to be massive, and the trick is just to stop it from flying through the core and out the other side at a billion miles an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the black hole was small enough and went directly down, it would pass through the core and exit at the same speed it entered.

My guess would be that because of it accumulating mass along the way, it 'might' actually slow itself down along the way, but further still I did throw in another possible means of dealing with this which was to launch a second one down in such a way that it either kicks the 2nd out completely and slows itself to a relative standstill or have them gravitationally separate due to interactions with the earth itself this "should" leave them with low enough momentum to keep them roughly within the confines of the earth without much additional effort (seeing as we've already built whatever machine we decide is best to make singularities with) a final option would be to make a second on the exact opposite side of the earth and send that on the same path so as to force them to collide (how to ensure that what they're eating up doesn't steer them off-path is far beyond me.

Edited by RaGeZorZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, I think the main problem is evaporation. If you want the black hole to last 1 milisecond it must have 23 tons of mass. And a black hole with that mass would have 3*10^-23 radius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, I think the main problem is evaporation. If you want the black hole to last 1 milisecond it must have 23 tons of mass. And a black hole with that mass would have 3*10^-23 radius.

I have to agree, regardless that just means its still a massive undertaking and we still have to go larger, it's far from easy, but it's still easier than others and (with some give and take) within our reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here realizes how much energy you'd need to change the earth's orbit. Just watch Scott Manley's video. The world's most powerful earthquakes have only changed the length of a day by less than 2 millionths of a second. The largest recorded earthquake was 2.7 gigatons while the largest nuclear test, Castle Bravo, was 15 megatons, you would need 180 of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree, regardless that just means its still a massive undertaking and we still have to go larger, it's far from easy, but it's still easier than others and (with some give and take) within our reach.

It's easier within someone life's time. To me, modifying the Earth's orbit is still much easier in terms of the current technology.

The problem with creating a micro singularity is that once we created it, we can't contain it. Creating a singularity with a spin is out of our reach, so the only force that will really affect it is gravity, and in that case, the dominant force will be Earth. So it's gonna fall. Fast. Likely, straight to the gravitational center of the Earth. Problem is, it's gonna gain some mass on it's way down. And singularities, when close to them, have a crazy attraction force when close to them, so when near to the core, some really really weird things will start happening. Mass is not evenly distributed on Earth, and at the core, it's not quite clear how gravity behaves. Since the mass is all around you, you're likely to have a simili zero G environment at the core. And that's where weird stuff starts happening. Some say it's likely to get ejected out Earth's SOI due to relativist effects, others, that it will start coming back and forth until it becomes massive enough to form some sort of binary system with the rest of the planet. And that's estimated to take some time. How much? No one really knows, but a while for sure. Most probably over a century, maybe a few more. Is that over someone's lifetime? Much more than heading off to Jupiter for sure. Is it within our reach? Mhhmm. Not yet. Until we master much much greater quantities of energy, we won't be able to create a singularity massive enough to survive long enough. Condensing a few tons into a singularity is not easy, and most of the really dense stuff is already very unstable. It's a good idea, but I hardly see it being doable anytime in a generation's time lapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we wait until the scientists at the LHC manage to accidentally create a strangelet ( a particle that must exist according to the laws of physics,that is so stable that when it touches other matter that matter recreates itself into strangelets) It wouldn't remove the planet but the planet could never support life or anything but strangelets.But im not a physicist so i cant tell you the specifics....:0.0:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the LHC is powerful enough or even suited to create those :P It can easily create unstable and heavy particles by colliding (and fusioning) low mass and energy particles (usually protons), but to get it to create other lowish mass and that stable particles, even through decay, I doubt so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoving a big chunk of Iron into the sun would cause a massive solar flare that would roast earth like a BBQ. Taking this up to 11 on paper would cause the star to go off main sequence in about 30'000 years and destroy the solar system.

Technically speaking, it would be much more easy to kill humanity using nuclear weapons or by shifting the moon just enough to cause the tides to destroy every major city.

Theory-wise, if someone could drop a 4 megaton thermonuclear device into the lower mantle (or into one of the supervolcanos' chambers like Yellowstone at the very least) and fire it, we'd have massive volcano eruptions which would coat the world in ash and usher in a new ice age.

Nudging a comet to crash into the earth isn't such a far-fetched idea either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Collect large mass of asteroids and bundle them up together
  2. Set this massive object on an orbit that cycles between Earth and Jupiter
  3. Object tugs Earth's orbit slightly outwards as it passes close by
  4. Object swings by Jupiter and picks up some of the energy it transfered to Earth
  5. Object swings back close to Earth
  6. Repeat as many times as required until Earth is pulled into Jupiter's gravity well and destroyed.
  7. Mwahahahahaaaaa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...