If a world had a massive single giant world tree could it stop an earthquake?Can a planet's axial tilt be changed by carefully planned and set high-energy explosions?Designing a city around a giant tree?City in the wake of the Yggdrasil: Engineering ConsiderationsEcosystem of Bladetree, a tree that has a trunk growing horizontally over the oceanHow could immortal children age faster than immortal adults?Could Bamboos Evolve Into Trees In the Past?Is an offset mountain range plausible?How could magic theoretically alter flora/fauna?All conditions being ideal (gravity, ecosystem, etc), what are the physical limits of tree growth on earth?Could a tree evolve to have vastly varying shades?what effect if the world have a single massive world giant tree?
Early 2000s movie about time travel, protagonist travels back to save girlfriend, then into multiple points in future
Does a lens with a bigger max. aperture focus faster than a lens with a smaller max. aperture?
What European countries have secret voting within the Legislature?
Robots in a spaceship
My colleague is constantly blaming me for his errors
Can a successful book series let the bad guy win?
Closest Proximity of Oceans to Freshwater Springs
Copy group of files (Filename*) to backup (Filename*.bak)
Color Specified Vertices in LayeredGraphPlot
On what to compliment someone with anorexia in order to improve their body image?
Can dual citizens open crypto exchange accounts where U.S. citizens are prohibited?
Could you fall off a planet if it was being accelerated by engines?
Discworld quote about an "old couple" who having said everything to each other, can finally go about living their lives
Origin of the convolution theorem
If I were to build a J3 cub twice the size of the original using the same CG would it fly?
1991 (I think) Trek 850 MTB bottom bracket replacement. Maybe similar to 830?
13th chords on guitar
Knight's move in chess.
Is ALTER TABLE ... DROP COLUMN really a metadata only operation?
How does mmorpg store data?
Active wildlife outside the window- Good or Bad for Cat psychology?
How can I open this door latch with the knobs removed?
By RAW, how can Prestidigitation create sound?
Story where diplomats use codes for emotions
If a world had a massive single giant world tree could it stop an earthquake?
Can a planet's axial tilt be changed by carefully planned and set high-energy explosions?Designing a city around a giant tree?City in the wake of the Yggdrasil: Engineering ConsiderationsEcosystem of Bladetree, a tree that has a trunk growing horizontally over the oceanHow could immortal children age faster than immortal adults?Could Bamboos Evolve Into Trees In the Past?Is an offset mountain range plausible?How could magic theoretically alter flora/fauna?All conditions being ideal (gravity, ecosystem, etc), what are the physical limits of tree growth on earth?Could a tree evolve to have vastly varying shades?what effect if the world have a single massive world giant tree?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
You know stuff like Yggdrasil tree but just a normal tree that is the biggest and tallest in the world. If the roots grow to surpass the continental and oceanic plate either it only cover some parts or entire world, can it stop earthquake or make it even worse to the zone covered by the root? Or what effect would it give?
biology flora geophysics earthquake
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know stuff like Yggdrasil tree but just a normal tree that is the biggest and tallest in the world. If the roots grow to surpass the continental and oceanic plate either it only cover some parts or entire world, can it stop earthquake or make it even worse to the zone covered by the root? Or what effect would it give?
biology flora geophysics earthquake
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
1
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know stuff like Yggdrasil tree but just a normal tree that is the biggest and tallest in the world. If the roots grow to surpass the continental and oceanic plate either it only cover some parts or entire world, can it stop earthquake or make it even worse to the zone covered by the root? Or what effect would it give?
biology flora geophysics earthquake
$endgroup$
You know stuff like Yggdrasil tree but just a normal tree that is the biggest and tallest in the world. If the roots grow to surpass the continental and oceanic plate either it only cover some parts or entire world, can it stop earthquake or make it even worse to the zone covered by the root? Or what effect would it give?
biology flora geophysics earthquake
biology flora geophysics earthquake
edited Jun 22 at 17:20
Cyn
15.3k2 gold badges31 silver badges71 bronze badges
15.3k2 gold badges31 silver badges71 bronze badges
asked Jun 20 at 14:09
Li JunLi Jun
1
1
3
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
1
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
1
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57
3
3
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
1
1
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "no"
What we learn from studies like this is that unless the soil is perfect, roots tend to grow out more than they grow down. They would certainly have more trouble getting through solid rock than they would soil, and tend to follow the path of least resistance. Consequently, a super large tree as you describe would have massive stability problems and would easily be blown over in the wind.
But, let's assume that our super-tree's roots can wiggle through anything like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Generally speaking, there's as much tree underground as there is above ground. The Earth's mantle is about 2,900 km thick. This would suggest a 2,900 km tall tree. (We'll also ignore the problems with pressure, heat, and simple nutrition as you descend through the mantle.) But at it's greatest extent, Earth's atmosphere is only about 480 km thick, putting most of the tree into the vacuum of space where it would wither and die for a variety of reasons. This would suggest that the largest our super-tree can be is about 300 km, but let's ignore this for the moment, too, and assume we have a powerful super-tree, 2,900 km tall, which we assume could lock fault lines into place and keep tectonic plates from moving.
The real killer with the idea is the tremendous energy involved with tectonic plates. In my answer to another question I pointed out that the magnitude 9 Sumatra earthquake released energy equivalent to a 2,000 megaton explosion with a blast radius that would devastate an entire hemisphere of our planet. This is why my ultimate answer is no, such a tree would not stop an earthquake. The mass of the Earth is considerably greater than the mass of the tree (even one as large as this).
From a simple point of view. There are a few complexities:
The tree's weight would cause some earthquakes by pressing down on fault lines. It would likely create new fault lines.
The tree's roots would stop small and potentially medium sized earthquakes by locking areas of the earth together.
While the tree would offer some protection against tectonic plates that slide against one another (like rubbing your hands back and forth), it would offer only moderate protection to plates that subduct (one slides under another).
But ultimately the tree would lose. Unable to lock all the tectonic plates and trying to stave off the force of the Earth's shifting fluid mass (which is much, much, much greater than the tree) would ultimately create an earthquake that would rip the tree (and, to an extent, the planet) apart.
All of which make for cool story plots, in my personally biased opinion!
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It would have no effect at all. Trees are not stronger than rocks (citation needed) and rocks couldn't stop an Earthquake. The Earth is already full, loaded with old roots and trees. Your tree can only grow down so far. Your tree needs 600km long roots to even reach a spot where it might matter. That puts you well into the upper mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
It's a bit hot down there, but we don't know if there is any life.
So for this to have any measurable effect, your tree would have to have high pressure magma radiation resistant roots that fill the upper and lower mantle of the Earth. And even then, it's still just wood (or is it, if it can withstand magma?)
To put this another way, your tree would need to be strong enough to:
Stop the moons orbit and hold it above the Earth and stop the spin of the Earth. How much energy would that take, someone answered that. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169589/how-much-energy-would-it-take-to-stop-earths-rotation-on-its-axis/169593 To be clear you don't need to actually stop the Earths spinning, but you need to be able to counter the Earths reaction to it's spinning, which is pretty much the same thing.
TL/DR The Earth is really big and heavy and is moving really fast, and you just have a tree.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's more likely that it would make the earthquake less destructive.
We can model the roots in the rocks like a composite material, which will be stressed by the tectonic movement. The more energy the system stores, the more destructive will be the quake when it breaks up.
A root being less resistant than rock means that the root will break at a lower load, leaving only the rock to resist. Bt having the rock a lower section due to the presence of the root, it means that it will break down earlier.
This will prevent storing more energy, thus the resulting quake will be less destructive.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the world tree would make earthquakes worse, since as the roots spread, they’d grow into the fault lines since that is the path of least resistance compared to growing into solid rock.
As the roots in the fault lines grow longer and thicker, they’d let water and other slimy slippery material in. When the faults snapped, these roots, and water and everything would act as lubricant, making more energy available for destruction that would have otherwise been lost to friction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149289%2fif-a-world-had-a-massive-single-giant-world-tree-could-it-stop-an-earthquake%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "no"
What we learn from studies like this is that unless the soil is perfect, roots tend to grow out more than they grow down. They would certainly have more trouble getting through solid rock than they would soil, and tend to follow the path of least resistance. Consequently, a super large tree as you describe would have massive stability problems and would easily be blown over in the wind.
But, let's assume that our super-tree's roots can wiggle through anything like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Generally speaking, there's as much tree underground as there is above ground. The Earth's mantle is about 2,900 km thick. This would suggest a 2,900 km tall tree. (We'll also ignore the problems with pressure, heat, and simple nutrition as you descend through the mantle.) But at it's greatest extent, Earth's atmosphere is only about 480 km thick, putting most of the tree into the vacuum of space where it would wither and die for a variety of reasons. This would suggest that the largest our super-tree can be is about 300 km, but let's ignore this for the moment, too, and assume we have a powerful super-tree, 2,900 km tall, which we assume could lock fault lines into place and keep tectonic plates from moving.
The real killer with the idea is the tremendous energy involved with tectonic plates. In my answer to another question I pointed out that the magnitude 9 Sumatra earthquake released energy equivalent to a 2,000 megaton explosion with a blast radius that would devastate an entire hemisphere of our planet. This is why my ultimate answer is no, such a tree would not stop an earthquake. The mass of the Earth is considerably greater than the mass of the tree (even one as large as this).
From a simple point of view. There are a few complexities:
The tree's weight would cause some earthquakes by pressing down on fault lines. It would likely create new fault lines.
The tree's roots would stop small and potentially medium sized earthquakes by locking areas of the earth together.
While the tree would offer some protection against tectonic plates that slide against one another (like rubbing your hands back and forth), it would offer only moderate protection to plates that subduct (one slides under another).
But ultimately the tree would lose. Unable to lock all the tectonic plates and trying to stave off the force of the Earth's shifting fluid mass (which is much, much, much greater than the tree) would ultimately create an earthquake that would rip the tree (and, to an extent, the planet) apart.
All of which make for cool story plots, in my personally biased opinion!
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "no"
What we learn from studies like this is that unless the soil is perfect, roots tend to grow out more than they grow down. They would certainly have more trouble getting through solid rock than they would soil, and tend to follow the path of least resistance. Consequently, a super large tree as you describe would have massive stability problems and would easily be blown over in the wind.
But, let's assume that our super-tree's roots can wiggle through anything like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Generally speaking, there's as much tree underground as there is above ground. The Earth's mantle is about 2,900 km thick. This would suggest a 2,900 km tall tree. (We'll also ignore the problems with pressure, heat, and simple nutrition as you descend through the mantle.) But at it's greatest extent, Earth's atmosphere is only about 480 km thick, putting most of the tree into the vacuum of space where it would wither and die for a variety of reasons. This would suggest that the largest our super-tree can be is about 300 km, but let's ignore this for the moment, too, and assume we have a powerful super-tree, 2,900 km tall, which we assume could lock fault lines into place and keep tectonic plates from moving.
The real killer with the idea is the tremendous energy involved with tectonic plates. In my answer to another question I pointed out that the magnitude 9 Sumatra earthquake released energy equivalent to a 2,000 megaton explosion with a blast radius that would devastate an entire hemisphere of our planet. This is why my ultimate answer is no, such a tree would not stop an earthquake. The mass of the Earth is considerably greater than the mass of the tree (even one as large as this).
From a simple point of view. There are a few complexities:
The tree's weight would cause some earthquakes by pressing down on fault lines. It would likely create new fault lines.
The tree's roots would stop small and potentially medium sized earthquakes by locking areas of the earth together.
While the tree would offer some protection against tectonic plates that slide against one another (like rubbing your hands back and forth), it would offer only moderate protection to plates that subduct (one slides under another).
But ultimately the tree would lose. Unable to lock all the tectonic plates and trying to stave off the force of the Earth's shifting fluid mass (which is much, much, much greater than the tree) would ultimately create an earthquake that would rip the tree (and, to an extent, the planet) apart.
All of which make for cool story plots, in my personally biased opinion!
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "no"
What we learn from studies like this is that unless the soil is perfect, roots tend to grow out more than they grow down. They would certainly have more trouble getting through solid rock than they would soil, and tend to follow the path of least resistance. Consequently, a super large tree as you describe would have massive stability problems and would easily be blown over in the wind.
But, let's assume that our super-tree's roots can wiggle through anything like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Generally speaking, there's as much tree underground as there is above ground. The Earth's mantle is about 2,900 km thick. This would suggest a 2,900 km tall tree. (We'll also ignore the problems with pressure, heat, and simple nutrition as you descend through the mantle.) But at it's greatest extent, Earth's atmosphere is only about 480 km thick, putting most of the tree into the vacuum of space where it would wither and die for a variety of reasons. This would suggest that the largest our super-tree can be is about 300 km, but let's ignore this for the moment, too, and assume we have a powerful super-tree, 2,900 km tall, which we assume could lock fault lines into place and keep tectonic plates from moving.
The real killer with the idea is the tremendous energy involved with tectonic plates. In my answer to another question I pointed out that the magnitude 9 Sumatra earthquake released energy equivalent to a 2,000 megaton explosion with a blast radius that would devastate an entire hemisphere of our planet. This is why my ultimate answer is no, such a tree would not stop an earthquake. The mass of the Earth is considerably greater than the mass of the tree (even one as large as this).
From a simple point of view. There are a few complexities:
The tree's weight would cause some earthquakes by pressing down on fault lines. It would likely create new fault lines.
The tree's roots would stop small and potentially medium sized earthquakes by locking areas of the earth together.
While the tree would offer some protection against tectonic plates that slide against one another (like rubbing your hands back and forth), it would offer only moderate protection to plates that subduct (one slides under another).
But ultimately the tree would lose. Unable to lock all the tectonic plates and trying to stave off the force of the Earth's shifting fluid mass (which is much, much, much greater than the tree) would ultimately create an earthquake that would rip the tree (and, to an extent, the planet) apart.
All of which make for cool story plots, in my personally biased opinion!
$endgroup$
The simple answer is "no"
What we learn from studies like this is that unless the soil is perfect, roots tend to grow out more than they grow down. They would certainly have more trouble getting through solid rock than they would soil, and tend to follow the path of least resistance. Consequently, a super large tree as you describe would have massive stability problems and would easily be blown over in the wind.
But, let's assume that our super-tree's roots can wiggle through anything like the proverbial hot knife through butter. Generally speaking, there's as much tree underground as there is above ground. The Earth's mantle is about 2,900 km thick. This would suggest a 2,900 km tall tree. (We'll also ignore the problems with pressure, heat, and simple nutrition as you descend through the mantle.) But at it's greatest extent, Earth's atmosphere is only about 480 km thick, putting most of the tree into the vacuum of space where it would wither and die for a variety of reasons. This would suggest that the largest our super-tree can be is about 300 km, but let's ignore this for the moment, too, and assume we have a powerful super-tree, 2,900 km tall, which we assume could lock fault lines into place and keep tectonic plates from moving.
The real killer with the idea is the tremendous energy involved with tectonic plates. In my answer to another question I pointed out that the magnitude 9 Sumatra earthquake released energy equivalent to a 2,000 megaton explosion with a blast radius that would devastate an entire hemisphere of our planet. This is why my ultimate answer is no, such a tree would not stop an earthquake. The mass of the Earth is considerably greater than the mass of the tree (even one as large as this).
From a simple point of view. There are a few complexities:
The tree's weight would cause some earthquakes by pressing down on fault lines. It would likely create new fault lines.
The tree's roots would stop small and potentially medium sized earthquakes by locking areas of the earth together.
While the tree would offer some protection against tectonic plates that slide against one another (like rubbing your hands back and forth), it would offer only moderate protection to plates that subduct (one slides under another).
But ultimately the tree would lose. Unable to lock all the tectonic plates and trying to stave off the force of the Earth's shifting fluid mass (which is much, much, much greater than the tree) would ultimately create an earthquake that would rip the tree (and, to an extent, the planet) apart.
All of which make for cool story plots, in my personally biased opinion!
answered Jun 20 at 14:39
JBHJBH
56.3k9 gold badges130 silver badges271 bronze badges
56.3k9 gold badges130 silver badges271 bronze badges
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
|
show 2 more comments
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
6
6
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
$begingroup$
You say that it would stop some by locking areas of the earth together - I'd argue that rather than stoping them, it would probably just shift them. The forces causing earthquakes wouldn't just be stored, they would get released in the nearest spot weak enough to break. Maybe its safe near the tree, but it might be even worse where the roots get more sparse.
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:18
2
2
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@bendl that's a pretty good point. We don't know what the nature of the tree is beyond it's size. If it's an oak or maple, then it's diameter is roughly equal to its height, meaning it's covering a radius of 2,900 km, which would lock the larger faults (think in terms of erosion control), but I hadn't considered that Mother Earth would simply shift the faults to other locations. I believe you're completely correct about that.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:20
3
3
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
$begingroup$
The roots of the tree cracking under the immense strain would also be a considerable concern. If the plates store up energy before slipping causes earthquakes, how much worse would it be if a World Tree root broke??
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
Jun 20 at 15:23
3
3
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
$begingroup$
A bit off topic for the question but since the poster mentioned yggdrasil if he's going for a Norse theme it would make for an interesting explanation of Midgard being surrounded by various 'heim's - those areas are more dangerous because of all the weird tectonics
$endgroup$
– bendl
Jun 20 at 15:25
1
1
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
$begingroup$
@JoeBloggs you're absolutely correct and that was badly intimated in my bullet about subduction. The shearing force is the wrong direction for roots. I also ignored gravity and the fact that so large a biological material is unknown to Real World science. Looking to explain stuff like this in the Real World is always a challenge.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:25
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It would have no effect at all. Trees are not stronger than rocks (citation needed) and rocks couldn't stop an Earthquake. The Earth is already full, loaded with old roots and trees. Your tree can only grow down so far. Your tree needs 600km long roots to even reach a spot where it might matter. That puts you well into the upper mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
It's a bit hot down there, but we don't know if there is any life.
So for this to have any measurable effect, your tree would have to have high pressure magma radiation resistant roots that fill the upper and lower mantle of the Earth. And even then, it's still just wood (or is it, if it can withstand magma?)
To put this another way, your tree would need to be strong enough to:
Stop the moons orbit and hold it above the Earth and stop the spin of the Earth. How much energy would that take, someone answered that. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169589/how-much-energy-would-it-take-to-stop-earths-rotation-on-its-axis/169593 To be clear you don't need to actually stop the Earths spinning, but you need to be able to counter the Earths reaction to it's spinning, which is pretty much the same thing.
TL/DR The Earth is really big and heavy and is moving really fast, and you just have a tree.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It would have no effect at all. Trees are not stronger than rocks (citation needed) and rocks couldn't stop an Earthquake. The Earth is already full, loaded with old roots and trees. Your tree can only grow down so far. Your tree needs 600km long roots to even reach a spot where it might matter. That puts you well into the upper mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
It's a bit hot down there, but we don't know if there is any life.
So for this to have any measurable effect, your tree would have to have high pressure magma radiation resistant roots that fill the upper and lower mantle of the Earth. And even then, it's still just wood (or is it, if it can withstand magma?)
To put this another way, your tree would need to be strong enough to:
Stop the moons orbit and hold it above the Earth and stop the spin of the Earth. How much energy would that take, someone answered that. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169589/how-much-energy-would-it-take-to-stop-earths-rotation-on-its-axis/169593 To be clear you don't need to actually stop the Earths spinning, but you need to be able to counter the Earths reaction to it's spinning, which is pretty much the same thing.
TL/DR The Earth is really big and heavy and is moving really fast, and you just have a tree.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It would have no effect at all. Trees are not stronger than rocks (citation needed) and rocks couldn't stop an Earthquake. The Earth is already full, loaded with old roots and trees. Your tree can only grow down so far. Your tree needs 600km long roots to even reach a spot where it might matter. That puts you well into the upper mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
It's a bit hot down there, but we don't know if there is any life.
So for this to have any measurable effect, your tree would have to have high pressure magma radiation resistant roots that fill the upper and lower mantle of the Earth. And even then, it's still just wood (or is it, if it can withstand magma?)
To put this another way, your tree would need to be strong enough to:
Stop the moons orbit and hold it above the Earth and stop the spin of the Earth. How much energy would that take, someone answered that. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169589/how-much-energy-would-it-take-to-stop-earths-rotation-on-its-axis/169593 To be clear you don't need to actually stop the Earths spinning, but you need to be able to counter the Earths reaction to it's spinning, which is pretty much the same thing.
TL/DR The Earth is really big and heavy and is moving really fast, and you just have a tree.
$endgroup$
It would have no effect at all. Trees are not stronger than rocks (citation needed) and rocks couldn't stop an Earthquake. The Earth is already full, loaded with old roots and trees. Your tree can only grow down so far. Your tree needs 600km long roots to even reach a spot where it might matter. That puts you well into the upper mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
It's a bit hot down there, but we don't know if there is any life.
So for this to have any measurable effect, your tree would have to have high pressure magma radiation resistant roots that fill the upper and lower mantle of the Earth. And even then, it's still just wood (or is it, if it can withstand magma?)
To put this another way, your tree would need to be strong enough to:
Stop the moons orbit and hold it above the Earth and stop the spin of the Earth. How much energy would that take, someone answered that. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169589/how-much-energy-would-it-take-to-stop-earths-rotation-on-its-axis/169593 To be clear you don't need to actually stop the Earths spinning, but you need to be able to counter the Earths reaction to it's spinning, which is pretty much the same thing.
TL/DR The Earth is really big and heavy and is moving really fast, and you just have a tree.
edited Jun 20 at 17:37
answered Jun 20 at 14:21
Trevor DTrevor D
3,2823 silver badges23 bronze badges
3,2823 silver badges23 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's more likely that it would make the earthquake less destructive.
We can model the roots in the rocks like a composite material, which will be stressed by the tectonic movement. The more energy the system stores, the more destructive will be the quake when it breaks up.
A root being less resistant than rock means that the root will break at a lower load, leaving only the rock to resist. Bt having the rock a lower section due to the presence of the root, it means that it will break down earlier.
This will prevent storing more energy, thus the resulting quake will be less destructive.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's more likely that it would make the earthquake less destructive.
We can model the roots in the rocks like a composite material, which will be stressed by the tectonic movement. The more energy the system stores, the more destructive will be the quake when it breaks up.
A root being less resistant than rock means that the root will break at a lower load, leaving only the rock to resist. Bt having the rock a lower section due to the presence of the root, it means that it will break down earlier.
This will prevent storing more energy, thus the resulting quake will be less destructive.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's more likely that it would make the earthquake less destructive.
We can model the roots in the rocks like a composite material, which will be stressed by the tectonic movement. The more energy the system stores, the more destructive will be the quake when it breaks up.
A root being less resistant than rock means that the root will break at a lower load, leaving only the rock to resist. Bt having the rock a lower section due to the presence of the root, it means that it will break down earlier.
This will prevent storing more energy, thus the resulting quake will be less destructive.
$endgroup$
It's more likely that it would make the earthquake less destructive.
We can model the roots in the rocks like a composite material, which will be stressed by the tectonic movement. The more energy the system stores, the more destructive will be the quake when it breaks up.
A root being less resistant than rock means that the root will break at a lower load, leaving only the rock to resist. Bt having the rock a lower section due to the presence of the root, it means that it will break down earlier.
This will prevent storing more energy, thus the resulting quake will be less destructive.
answered Jun 20 at 15:20
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
101k32 gold badges238 silver badges486 bronze badges
101k32 gold badges238 silver badges486 bronze badges
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
5
5
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
$begingroup$
Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jun 20 at 15:27
2
2
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
$begingroup$
+1 and this way your tree don't even need to be tall, just to spread it's roots like this one:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew_of_Pirangi
$endgroup$
– jean
Jun 21 at 16:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the world tree would make earthquakes worse, since as the roots spread, they’d grow into the fault lines since that is the path of least resistance compared to growing into solid rock.
As the roots in the fault lines grow longer and thicker, they’d let water and other slimy slippery material in. When the faults snapped, these roots, and water and everything would act as lubricant, making more energy available for destruction that would have otherwise been lost to friction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the world tree would make earthquakes worse, since as the roots spread, they’d grow into the fault lines since that is the path of least resistance compared to growing into solid rock.
As the roots in the fault lines grow longer and thicker, they’d let water and other slimy slippery material in. When the faults snapped, these roots, and water and everything would act as lubricant, making more energy available for destruction that would have otherwise been lost to friction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the world tree would make earthquakes worse, since as the roots spread, they’d grow into the fault lines since that is the path of least resistance compared to growing into solid rock.
As the roots in the fault lines grow longer and thicker, they’d let water and other slimy slippery material in. When the faults snapped, these roots, and water and everything would act as lubricant, making more energy available for destruction that would have otherwise been lost to friction.
$endgroup$
I think the world tree would make earthquakes worse, since as the roots spread, they’d grow into the fault lines since that is the path of least resistance compared to growing into solid rock.
As the roots in the fault lines grow longer and thicker, they’d let water and other slimy slippery material in. When the faults snapped, these roots, and water and everything would act as lubricant, making more energy available for destruction that would have otherwise been lost to friction.
answered Jun 21 at 4:45
EDLEDL
2,4393 silver badges14 bronze badges
2,4393 silver badges14 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149289%2fif-a-world-had-a-massive-single-giant-world-tree-could-it-stop-an-earthquake%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
What if it isn't one massively tall tree? What about a massive amount of trees springing up from one root system? The outcome will probably be the same as others have explained below, but there is at least an example of it in nature.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
$endgroup$
– Zillakon
Jun 20 at 16:57
$begingroup$
ah yeah i was gonna change into that for my world building after the tree collapse just qurious of the effect like earthquake though, thanks for the example.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Jun 20 at 17:00
1
$begingroup$
if anything a giant slowly shifting weight is going to cause earthquakes not stop them.
$endgroup$
– John
Jun 23 at 2:57