How do you destroy a planet?

Develop a missile capable of burrowing down to the core of the planet where it would then detonate thus setting off seismic waves within the liquid core thus demolishing the planet from within. It's the same principle as filling a safe with water and then using a small explosive charge as demonstrated on Mythbusters because there's then more for the charge to push against.

Astronomer said:

So how would you destroy a planet? And you must use scientifically plausible means.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by destroy? I.e. what should it look like afterwards?

Cheapest method: use a really, really big mirror to reflect sunlight on it, and completely vaporize it.

DaveKuzminski said:

Develop a missile capable of burrowing down to the core of the planet where it would then detonate thus setting off seismic waves within the liquid core thus demolishing the planet from within. It's the same principle as filling a safe with water and then using a small explosive charge as demonstrated on Mythbusters because there's then more for the charge to push against.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, doesn't work. A planet is nothing at all like a water filled safe on a planet.

The traditional method is to build a huge mass-driver to fire relativistic rocks, using a significant fraction of the sun's output to power it. But you probably couldn't manage that on the moon.

The mirror is an interesting idea: ultimately you need to throw a huge amount of energy at the planet in order to break it apart against gravity and the sun is the only place you're likely to get that from. The question is really just how you convert solar power into planet-busting power.

Find a suitable meteoroid and change its course (using small impact to deflect it?) to hit the planet. The moon's survival? Not guaranteed.

The moon can only survive if the planet stays intact and only the biosphere gets wiped out.
Everything that will scatter the planetary mass across the orbit, or even solar system, will take the moon with it.
The very best that could happen is that the moon goes flying off, since the planet is was orbiting is kinda missing. Depending on the relevant sizes and speeds, anything could happen, from it crashing into the star, to it settling into its own, wider orbit around the star, at least until it gets swept up by an outer planet.

I originally saw this article on destroying the Earth on livescience.com, but it has apparently since been taken down from there. It's a great article, in my opinion, and I think you guys should enjoy it.

http://qntm.org/destroy

The website has asked readers not to paste any more than the article's prologue on other sites, so you'll need to go to that link to see what comes after the following text:

Preamble

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.


You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.


Fools.


The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.


This is not a guide for wusses whose aim is merely to wipe out humanity. I (Sam Hughes) can in no way guarantee the complete extinction of the human race via any of these methods, real or imaginary. Humanity is wily and resourceful, and many of the methods outlined below will take many years to even become available, let alone implement, by which time mankind may well have spread to other planets; indeed, other star systems. If total human genocide is your ultimate goal, you are reading the wrong document. There are far more efficient ways of doing this, many which are available and feasible RIGHT NOW. Nor is this a guide for those wanting to annihilate everything from single-celled life upwards, render Earth uninhabitable or simply conquer it. These are trivial goals in comparison.


This is a guide for those who do not want the Earth to be there anymore.

Astronomer said:

So how would you destroy a planet? And you must use scientifically plausible means.

Click to expand...

Have the sun die and let nature take its course.

It takes a while, but the planet will eventually be destroyed. Right along with the rest of the solar system.

Misa, who thinks big.

And you must use scientifically plausible means.

Click to expand...

I'd keep an eye on the news from CERN and see if they manage to make any baby black holes... if that becomes plausible, then I'd go with creating a temporary black hole in the center of the Earth.

I'd construct a black hole. Isn't the earth covered in teeny tiny ones already?

The problem with "destroying" a planet is that even if you break it into a hundred billion itty bitty pieces, those pieces still have the same mass (and thus the same gravity) as the planet, which means they are going to stay right where they are and compress into a planet-sized mass again. When the Death Star blows up Alderaan, you wouldn't really get an asteroid field, you'd get a big rocky planetary sphere.

So if by "destroy" you mean "remove the actual physical planet," I think the only way is by some sort of outlandish super-science that can actually destroy matter on a planetary scale. (Even "disintegration" wouldn't do it, if disintegration means reducing to dust, since you'd still have a planetary mass worth of dust reforming into a solid body.)

Astronomer said:

Grade A : Explode Earth into pie-shaped fragments, just like in the cartoons. (This, of course, comes with the realization that the pie-shaped fragments will fall back together to reform the planet, but at least it will be an uninhabitable shadow of its former self. And, personally, I don't think pie-shaped fragments are even possible. Pie -- and I'm talking the apple/pumpkin variety -- just doesn't scale like that.)

Click to expand...

You're right that it doesn't work. At the energy levels involved at this size, you can consider rock a liquid. The rigidity of even the hardest material is nothing, compared to the shear or even just inertia a mass the size of earth (or just a large fragment of earth) can can produce.

Grade B : Convert Earth into a boiling, molten mass. Just melt the crust, and you're there. Easy!

Grade C : Destroy all life. This includes all cockroaches and bacteria.

Click to expand...

This is kinda the same. There are bacteria that can damn near live in molten rock (and others some eat radiation!) so you'll really need to melt the whole surface to sterilize earth. And melt it white-hot, not red-hot, just to be on the safe side.

Lhun, what took you so long? It's always good to have you chime in.

Click to expand...

While i'm online at all hours, i'm not online permanently.

Your comments are, of course, 100% spot on

Click to expand...

Thanks, i try.

The site richcapo is really good for this topic. I couldn't spot any real mistakes (though i have a few things to nitpick about).
About the microscopic black hole, two more things need to be said (especially since it came up in this thread). For one, to avoid evaporation, one needs a size that's not only above the instant evaporation limit, but one given by the density of material around it. I.e. every black hole slowly evaporates at a rate determined by its surface area. And it absorbs matter depending on its surface area and mass as well as amount of surrounding matter. So the black hole needs to be big enough to allow it to swallow enough matter from the earth to outweigh the constant evaporation. Fortunately, the matter inside a planet is quite dense.
The second thing is that starting with a black hole that's as small as possible (since that's as easy to create as possible) will take a really, really long time. The thing is so tiny in the beginning that it will only swallow a couple of atoms every time it passes through earth. It could take hundreds of thousands of years for earth to be swallowed completely. Imagine it this way: once the black hole has swallowed all the mass of earth, it'll still only be a few millimetres large. Imagine how long it would take to absorb the earth one millimetre thick rod at a time, and then remember that it's only that "big" once it done, at the beginning it is much, much smaller. Heck, it would already take a long time for the black hole to grow big enough to swallow more matter each year than the earth gains from asteroid impacts.
The growth is exponential, but exponential with a really really tiny base, so if one wants to destroy earth in a timely fashion one needs to start out with a bigger black hole.

The other thing to nitpick about is that earth, if vaporized, doesn't really turn into a gas cloud. Earth isn't massive enough to form as a gas planet, let alone one with the internal pressure of gaseous iron. If earth is turned into vapour, the internal pressure will cause it to dissipate.

Really useful are the section about blowing up the earth. The amounts of antimatter required kinda illustrate just how big the gravitational pull is.

How about opening up a "white hole" at the planet's core?

Yeah, theoretically not very plausible, but still a possibility within certain plausible theories.

Al that energy assumed to be pulsing out of a white hole would bow the planet apart pretty quickly I would think.

The opening is less of a problem than white holes being completely fictional.

I'll go even farther and say that a tiny black hole (assumed to be created by smashing two atomic nuclei together at mind-blowing energy levels) is even too tiny to absorb a single proton.

Click to expand...

Aside from the amusing image of a black hole choking on a proton... does it have the strength to rip the proton apart and then eat it?

Hmm... crash the moon into the Earth? Even if it doesn't completely destroy the Earth, if you do it right you could probably destabilize its orbit and send it spiraling towards the Sun. In which case, it would probably explode into tiny fragments. Just like the movies.

The time scale you'd be looking at may not fit your bill. But then again, steering the moon into the Earth would probably kill just about anything alive in the first few hours. The remaining bacteria/cockroaches probably wouldn't have time to develop the technology needed to reverse the planet's doomed trajectory before being vaporized in a giant molten nuclear furnace that practically defines "overkill".

I would create the reverse fission catalyst that targets both hydrogen and oxygen and separates the atomic bonds so the elements divide independently from each other. Following that up with an ignition sequence would detonate the independent super concentrated gases.

Basically every ounce of water including the ice on Earth would destabilize into free form oxygen and hydrogen with the speed of nuclear fission, only it's nuclear fraction. The moment it's done, usually within seconds, the ignition would trigger the global now super condensed atmosphere into an explosion.

I'm not sure it would blow the planet into pieces, but considering the amount of ice and water on the Earth compared to the land mass, I'm sure you'd lose everything down to the mantle, at least.

Daniel A. Roberts said:

I would create the reverse fission catalyst that targets both hydrogen and oxygen and separates the atomic bonds so the elements divide independently from each other. Following that up with an ignition sequence would detonate the independent super concentrated gases.

Click to expand...

Leaving aside that this is total magic , The energy required to split water is exactly the same as the energy produced when producing water, so you wouldn't get a big explosion, but a really really frozen planet.

Lhun said:

Leaving aside that this is total magic , The energy required to split water is exactly the same as the energy produced when producing water, so you wouldn't get a big explosion, but a really really frozen planet.

Click to expand...

Advanced science always appears as magic. Nuclear fraction works almost identical to nuclear fission.

Take fission with the U235 atom. When split by a neutrino, three more neutrinos are emitted, heat is released etc etc.

Fraction doesn't use a neutrino, but a radical proton. Meaning it's a proton that has broken free of it's atomic orbit and is related to the electrons that bind hydrogen and oxygen. Those electons get smashed by the radical proton when introduced by a molecular catalyst and they release anywhere from 3 to 5 more radical protons which react against more related electrons.

A related electron is keyed to the pion signature that is related to two or more elements that form a compound. Not all electrons are created equal on the subatomic level. It's why a magnet can attract steel and not your skin. The magnetic lines of force are related to the molecular structure on a subatomic level and they attract each other.

Finding the relationship that fuses hydrogen and oxygen and then shattering that relationship with a radical proton that is keyed to that relationship and you get nuclear fraction.

Using an electric current to break those bonds does exactly what you suggested. This is not using eletrical means. It's a chemical catalyst that is self sustaining, much like the fission inside a nuclear core. Without control rods in a core, you get the China Syndrome. There are no control rods that absorb radical protons. The Earth would be screwed in a heartbeart.

The only challenge in the research is finding the correct radical proton with the proper relationship to the chemical compound H[SUB]2[/SUB]O and a magnetic jar to house enough of them to start a chain reaction when exposed to the substance. Only about a few million at the most, which is a tremendously low count compared to standard fission.

But I don't expect acceptance of that process. Many people who go down rarely explored avenues of science don't get support. Lots of naysayers. If they were listened to, Edison would have given up on trying to invent the lightbulb after his 10,000th failure. But then Edison refused to count those as failures and told folks that he learned 10,000 ways to 'not' make a lightbulb.

Daniel A. Roberts said:

Advanced science always appears as magic.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Clarke's third law is bullshit, just because a well-known SF writer said something doesn't make it correct.

Take fission with the U235 atom. When split by a neutrino, three more neutrinos are emitted, heat is released etc etc.

Click to expand...

You mean neutrons i gather.

Fraction doesn't use a neutrino, but a radical proton. Meaning it's a proton that has broken free of it's atomic orbit and is related to the electrons that bind hydrogen and oxygen. Those electons get smashed by the radical proton when introduced by a molecular catalyst and they release anywhere from 3 to 5 more radical protons which react against more related electrons.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure if you're just misusing the names of subatomic particles here, or making stuff up. Protons have no atomic orbit, they're parts of the nucleus. Electrons can't get "smashed" by protons. Electrons also can't release protons if "smashed", by virtue of being about two thousand times smaller.

A related electron is keyed to the pion signature that is related to two or more elements that form a compound. Not all electrons are created equal on the subatomic level. It's why a magnet can attract steel and not your skin.

Click to expand...

I have no idea who told you that, but if it was any kind of physics teacher, fire him. And "keyed to pion signature" belongs on StarTrek.

The magnetic lines of force are related to the molecular structure on a subatomic level and they attract each other.

Click to expand...

No they're not.

Finding the relationship that fuses hydrogen and oxygen and then shattering that relationship with a radical proton that is keyed to that relationship and you get nuclear fraction.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to sound rude, but that's total rubbish. Hydrogen and oxygen aren't fused in water. If you fuse hydrogen and oxygen, you end up with highly radioactive flourine, and shortly after, with oxygen again. And in water, there is no relationship to shatter, it's a quite simple covalent bond between two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

Using an electric current to break those bonds does exactly what you suggested. This is not using eletrical means. It's a chemical catalyst that is self sustaining, much like the fission inside a nuclear core. Without control rods in a core, you get the China Syndrome. There are no control rods that absorb radical protons. The Earth would be screwed in a heartbeart.

Click to expand...

No, sorry, farther from reality than recalibrating the main reflector dish again.
Whatever means you'd use to break up a molecule, the same amount of energy that was released when it was created, needs to be put in when it's broken apart. If that amount is bigger than 0 there's no catalyst. It's the first law of thermodynamics, kind of the most fundamental of all, aka: from nothing comes nothing.
Fission has nothing whatsoever to do with a chemical catalyst. It isn't even concerned with chemistry.
Protons, being charged particles, are much much easier to block than neutrons. The massive control rods inside nuclear reactors are only required to block neutrons because those, being neutral, will fly in a straight line, undisturbed by anything around them (except gravity). So you need a lot material to make sure the neutron hits something. For a proton, you just need a little electric charge, or even a magnet, and it will fly where you want it to.

The only challenge in the research is finding the correct radical proton with the proper relationship to the chemical compound H[SUB]2[/SUB]O and a magnetic jar to house enough of them to start a chain reaction when exposed to the substance. Only about a few million at the most, which is a tremendously low count compared to standard fission. Fun fact: Proton beams are being used for cancer radiation therapy.

But I don't expect acceptance of that process. Many people who go down rarely explored avenues of science don't get support. Lots of naysayers.

Click to expand...

Oh please don't try that excuse. It's the last retreat of kooks and cranks since ancient times and will immediately associate you with them, even if you don't deserve it. Sure people laughed at Galileo. But people laughed at Boffo the clown as well, and if someone gets laughed at, odds are he's the next Boffo, not the next Galileo. Because there's millions of Boffos for every Galileo.

If they were listened to, Edison would have given up on trying to invent the lightbulb after his 10,000th failure. But then Edison refused to count those as failures and told folks that he learned 10,000 ways to 'not' make a lightbulb.

Click to expand...

Edison solved an engineering problem. Science works differently. There is no possibility of future science radically breaking known physical laws. The laws describing how the things work that we understand will never radically change, because if they did, we'd see all those things behave differently. Gravity causes things to fall to the center of the local mass, not downwards. That law will never be shown to be false because if it wasn't true, the aussies would fall off the earth. And they don't.
There might be some change in the understanding of why gravity works that way (that's how the discovery of DNA changed genetics) or some refinement that allows more accurate predictions (that's what Einstein did to mechanics) but there's never any radical turning-on-its-head.

To score an A is basically impossible.

To score a B, you'd just need a good sized relativistic kill vehicle, or a suitably large asteroid. Get something with like a million tons of mass up to around .5 C, and then let hit something earth sized. The crust would probably be liquefied, and a lot of the atmosphere stripped off.

Put humans on it and wait a few hundred-thousand years.

Without the Earth, the Moon will not last long until it runs into something.