Can a planet suddenly explode?

[flyingpig]

Like can whatever is happening inside,

tsunamis, earthquake, volcanic explosion, hurricanes, the sky ripping apart, or just any natural disasters that all happen at the same thing and the planet cannot contain the chaos and explode?

I mean stars can, why can't planets?

 

[An Open Mind]

Like can whatever is happening inside,

tsunamis, earthquake, volcanic explosion, hurricanes, the sky ripping apart, or just any natural disasters that all happen at the same thing and the planet cannot contain the chaos and explode?

I mean stars can, why can't planets?

If all these natual disasters happened at the same time? Uhh I still don't think it would be enough to demolish the planet. The planet has to be hit by something roughly it's size for it to actually crack..apart from that gravity keeps it together. ( I can't explain it much more )

Why stars explode.
Helium and hydrogen constantly fusing making heavier elements such as iron in the innercore of the star, makes it to heavy for it's own good and collapses under it's own weight which causes it to explode..known as a supernova, If the star is atleast 100x as big as our sun. Then it as known as a hypernova, these are thought to be the birth of a black hole. These still explode once they collapse, however the gas and elements forced out from the hypernova is pulled back in towards a colossal black hole.

I apologize if this is a little bit off the topic, however I will post a link to where I found this infomation when I get home.

 

[davenn]

Like can whatever is happening inside,


I mean stars can, why can't planets?

Because the processes going on inside stars is very different to the processes going on inside the Earth / pther planets. As hinted at by the previous poster.

do some reading on stars and also on the Earth / geology etc :)

Dave

 

[Nihilist]

I know from welding that when a molten ball of steel mixes with enough zinc and possibly oxygen, it's typically shielded with 99% Argon but cover is not usually perfect, the molten ball can suddenly explode quite violently.

Is it possible for a planet with a molten iron core to be impacted with a large heavily zinc body that gradually melts into the core, becoming unstable and exploding this way?

 

[Drakkith]

I know from welding that when a molten ball of steel mixes with enough zinc and possibly oxygen, it's typically shielded with 99% Argon but cover is not usually perfect, the molten ball can suddenly explode quite violently.

Is it possible for a planet with a molten iron core to be impacted with a large heavily zinc body that gradually melts into the core, becoming unstable and exploding this way?

I don't think there would be nearly enough oxygen to do anything on the scale you are imagining.

 

[davenn]

I don't think there would be nearly enough oxygen to do anything on the scale you are imagining.

plus, as far as I'm aware there has never been any solid zinc objects found, if 200 + years of meteorite collecting is anything to go by. they are all in 3 main classes... nickel/iron, stony irons or stones, nay a zinc meteorite amongst them :)

cheers
Dave

 

[lone77star]

Yes, a planet can explode, if it is hit by a massive enough object at a fast enough speed. Like the cometary material that hit Jupiter several years ago? Yikes! Otherwise, a planet is largely stable.

I have wondered if our sun went supernova (which it won't because it is too lightweight) if it would be enough energy and force to blow a planet apart as they show happening in the movie Star Trek (2009). That was a bit bogus, though, because the supernova was not the planet's primary, so the wavefront of particles would take several years to reach it from an adjacent star system.

Or if our sun were suddenly gated away and replaced by say Rigel (Beta Orionis). At 57,000 x Sol's intrinsic brightness, could that vaporize (explode) our planet? I wonder. That would yield more than a blistering sunburn.

Rod Martin, Jr.
http://www.ancientsuns.com/fwd/ssw/"

 

[Drakkith]

Yes, a planet can explode, if it is hit by a massive enough object at a fast enough speed. Like the cometary material that hit Jupiter several years ago? Yikes! Otherwise, a planet is largely stable.

I don't really think that's the meaning of "explode". Especially considering the OP's question about an internal chemical reaction blowing the planet apart.

 

[arivero]

So the question is how much energy has the planet -say, Earth- stored, either mechanical (rotational), chemical or even just thermical.

 

[qraal]

So the question is how much energy has the planet -say, Earth- stored, either mechanical (rotational), chemical or even just thermical.

Correct. We can make a few estimates based on the way the core is compacted and from solving the Lane-Embden equation for a n=1.0 polytrope, which is roughly correct for most planets and has a really easy solution for its gravitational binding energy. A useful discussion of the basic maths of polytropes can be found here... http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/polytrop.pdf" There's not enough stored up in chemical bonds to unbind a planet, but the stored energy can become important when two planets get close enough - the abrupt change in the gravity felt by the bodies can cause the stored energy to be released violently and they blow themselves apart. Assuming they aren't already colliding that is :-)

 

[Drakkith]

There's not enough stored up in chemical bonds to unbind a planet, but the stored energy can become important when two planets get close enough - the abrupt change in the gravity felt by the bodies can cause the stored energy to be released violently and they blow themselves apart. Assuming they aren't already colliding that is :-)

Why would they blow themselves apart?

 

[lone77star]

I don't really think that's the meaning of "explode". Especially considering the OP's question about an internal chemical reaction blowing the planet apart.

Okay, dictionary definition -- explode: "Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process, typically scattering fragments widely."

Hmmm! Sounds like it to me. If you shoot a projectile at Earth, say the size of the moon or larger at say 50 miles per second. Yep! I think that'll do some vaporizing of rock and metal. A solid turned into vapor in a confined space is going to act as "excessive internal pressure."

There are many possible sources for explosion -- chemical, nuclear and with my example from collision. The original question did not say anything about "chemical reaction." In fact, it alluded to stellar nuclear processes, which of course do not occur on Earth, except when humans get pesky with their toys.

 

[Drakkith]

Okay, dictionary definition -- explode: "Burst or shatter violently and noisily as a result of rapid combustion, decomposition, excessive internal pressure, or other process, typically scattering fragments widely."

Hmmm! Sounds like it to me. If you shoot a projectile at Earth, say the size of the moon or larger at say 50 miles per second. Yep! I think that'll do some vaporizing of rock and metal. A solid turned into vapor in a confined space is going to act as "excessive internal pressure."

There are many possible sources for explosion -- chemical, nuclear and with my example from collision. The original question did not say anything about "chemical reaction." In fact, it alluded to stellar nuclear processes, which of course do not occur on Earth, except when humans get pesky with their toys.

Again, I do not think the collision of a large object with the Earth really classifies as an explosion. The impact may cause secondary events that do classify as explosions, but that wouldn't be the main source of energy for shattering the Earth. I don't know the term but there's got to be one for a high velocity kinetic impact that causes the target to break apart.

 

[qraal]

Why would they blow themselves apart?

When the planets get close together the gravitational field which keeps them compressed changes and the whole thing could, in theory, explode as the compressed chemical bonds between the atoms/molecules of the planetary cores relax into a new configuration. Simulations which take this effect into account produce some spectacular fragmenting planets.

Consider the Earth. Its uncompressed density is ~4.18 while its average density is 5.515. Means quite a bit of energy is stored up in the molecular "springs" of the compressed matter. If Earth and Venus had a very close flyby, then they'd both abruptly experience a cancellation of the gravity squeeze in the region of closest approach, causing a massive eruption of rebounding mantle and core material.

 

[lone77star]

Again, I do not think the collision of a large object with the Earth really classifies as an explosion. The impact may cause secondary events that do classify as explosions, but that wouldn't be the main source of energy for shattering the Earth. I don't know the term but there's got to be one for a high velocity kinetic impact that causes the target to break apart.

Ahh, so a collision can lead to an explosion, after all? Don't defend a poor idea. Simply let it go and move on. Science is all about humility in the search for answers. Arrogance only gets in the way. We all can learn new things.

Certainly, lower speed collisions can cause shearing and breakage which would not constitute an explosion. But I was talking about volatility in a confined space from the heat generated by great speed. The speed of much smaller meteor impacts still cause some volatility which melts and even vaporizes crustal material.

Not the main source for shattering the Earth? I can see that such a claim might be accurate, but have you done any studies of this or computer modeling of the forces involved? I haven't, but I'd be interested in seeing such.

 

[lone77star]

When the planets get close together the gravitational field which keeps them compressed changes and the whole thing could, in theory, explode as the compressed chemical bonds between the atoms/molecules of the planetary cores relax into a new configuration. Simulations which take this effect into account produce some spectacular fragmenting planets.

Some good ideas for the most part. But I don't think chemical bonds have much to do with the effect you're describing. That sounds more like tidal shearing from one gravitational body entering the Roche's limit of another gravitational body. For instance, the rings of Saturn might be the result of a moon entering the Roche's limit of that beautiful planet. Of course, it could merely mean that the primordial material from the original dust cloud never formed an aggregate body and remained disassociated because it remains within the Roche's limit of Saturn. If it ever started to aggregate, it would be quickly torn apart by those tidal shearing forces.

Similar tidal shearing forces are at work on Io, Jupiter's innermost Galilean moon, but in Io's case, the moon is not within Jupiter's Roche limit and the gravitational "massage" Io gets is a double whammy from Jupiter and one of Io's sibling moons. That's why Io has the most volcanic complexion in the Solar System. (Does anyone have acne cream for Io?)

 

[Drakkith]

Ahh, so a collision can lead to an explosion, after all? Don't defend a poor idea. Simply let it go and move on. Science is all about humility in the search for answers. Arrogance only gets in the way. We all can learn new things.

There is absolutely no reason to be rude. That will get you nowhere here on PF except to a warning/ban. I will gladly concede my argument if someone provides me with good reason to, as I have here myself when looking this up under explosion on wikipedia:

Another type of large astronomical explosion occurs when a very large meteoroid or an asteroid impacts the surface of another object, such as a planet.

I still believe this type of explosion was not what the OP had in mind, however I will agree that based on this it looks like it is an explosion.

In the future I would suggest a little patience when dealing with people. No one here is right every time, and there is no reason to suggest that they are arrogant or anything else.

 

[only1universe]

I'm sure their must be enough energy to turn it all into nuclear weapons, explode them all in the Earth's core, and blow us to smithereens. I like that word.

Anyway, I believe a planet can explode if it has humans dedicated fully to building nuclear bombs, then burying at the most effective depth to cause explosion, then detonating.

Is this a physics answer? I don't know but it shows that life does have some place in the grand scheme of things as we can blow a planet up from within.

 

[Drakkith]

Lets stay on topic please. This question was about the explosion of a planet by natural means, not manmade.

 

[only1universe]

Lets stay on topic please. This question was about the explosion of a planet by natural means, not manmade.

Manmade would be natural means imo, but i get what your saying.

 

[lone77star]

There is absolutely no reason to be rude. That will get you nowhere here on PF except to a warning/ban.

I still believe this type of explosion was not what the OP had in mind, however I will agree that based on this it looks like it is an explosion.

In the future I would suggest a little patience when dealing with people. No one here is right every time, and there is no reason to suggest that they are arrogant or anything else.

:

Rude? My dear Drakkith, I apologize for even seeming to be rude, but that was not my intention. Don't be so sensitive. I was making a statement of fact and a "Dutch Uncle" suggestion. If you love science as much as I do, please take it in that spirit.

I was very careful not to accuse you of anything. Please read it again. I have to apologize if you misperceived that non-directed statement as something directed at you. I left it non-directed just in case you could see that you might have been in that state.

Do you want to defend a poor idea? And that is what you did. Confidence without humility is arrogance. Confidence with humility is faith. Perhaps neither should be in science. But humble restraint should be. Even skepticism contains a bias (doubt). Some forget to aim their skepticism at their own fixed ideas. Heck, even I do that sometimes.

Does arrogance get in the way of an investigation? Certainly it does. And I even have some experience with this (giving as well as receiving). So, I'm not perfect by a long shot. But, my dear Drakkith, please don't use threats. Again, you're defending a poor idea. That's a sign of arrogance. If pointing out a fact will get me banned, especially when I say it without insult or injury, then I would not want to be in such a place. I seek wisdom and also want to share the few scraps I've learned in more than half a century. You don't have to accept them, and it is clear you do not want to consider them. Alas! That's your loss.

The original question was pretty broad: "Can a planet suddenly explode?" That by itself leaves the question open to a broad range of possibilities. The OP's comments in the first post do mention natural and perhaps local phenomena, but I see nothing there that constricts the subject to natural or local. If anything, comparing the idea of his "natural and local" to "artificial and/or non-local" can be enlightening and helpful in the discussion of such "natural and local" ideas. Looking at a subject from all angles can prove productive -- literal, analogy, contrast and perhaps others.

Drakkith, again my apologies, this time for the apparent "impatience." Was it impatience on your part to condemn my idea without asking more questions or investigating in Wikipedia as you did, later? And was I really impatient? Do you assume something not in evidence? Don't be afraid of looking at "arrogance." We can all do better; I will endeavor to do so, also.

Analogy: a machine can crank out product. The product can be flawed, but also the machine can be flawed. One can attempt to correct both. If the machine gets annoyed and doesn't want to be corrected, that's its business, but then I wouldn't want any more of its product.

And this machine has spent a lifetime correcting its own "machine flaws." Imagine that.

 

[lone77star]

Lets stay on topic please. This question was about the explosion of a planet by natural means, not manmade.

I think he was staying on topic. Can a planet suddenly explode? Again, the OP did not specifically constrain the question to natural and local. By comparing other possibilities to natural and local we can get a good idea of what is required for such an explosion, right?

It seems, at first glance, that nothing of the local, natural forces would be anywhere near strong enough to cause the planet to explode, unless you want to count volcanic eruptions (and they are sometimes explosions ). What else is there to talk about? Compare that to man-made, or compare it to natural and external, as I did with my collision scenario.

Manmade would be natural means imo, but i get what your saying.

Hmmm, I don't think man-made could be classified as "natural." At least not by any definition I've ever read. In fact, there are "natural" satellites and there are "man-made" or "artificial" satellites. There are "natural" sweeteners and "artificial" (man-made) sweeteners. One defining characteristic of "natural" is that it is not "man-made." I suppose there would be a category which is neither "natural" or "man-made" (chimp-made, perhaps?).

 

[Janus]

I'm sure their must be enough energy to turn it all into nuclear weapons, explode them all in the Earth's core, and blow us to smithereens. I like that word.

Anyway, I believe a planet can explode if it has humans dedicated fully to building nuclear bombs, then burying at the most effective depth to cause explosion, then detonating.

Is this a physics answer? I don't know but it shows that life does have some place in the grand scheme of things as we can blow a planet up from within.

The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is 2e32 joules, which is the equivalent of ~5e16 megatons of nuclear yield. The largest nuclear weapon ever built was rated at 50 megatons. so this is the equivalent of 10^15 of these bombs.

The surface area of the Earth is only ~5e14m² which means you would need enough of these bombs to cover the entire surface of the Earth with two bombs squeezed into every square meter.

In addition, each nuclear weapon needs about 15 kg of fissile material such as U 235 for the "trigger". Even if you include the amount of uranium in the oceans, you come up with only ~1/417,000 of the amount needed.

 

[only1universe]

Hmmm, I don't think man-made could be classified as "natural." At least not by any definition I've ever read. In fact, there are "natural" satellites and there are "man-made" or "artificial" satellites. There are "natural" sweeteners and "artificial" (man-made) sweeteners. One defining characteristic of "natural" is that it is not "man-made." I suppose there would be a category which is neither "natural" or "man-made" (chimp-made, perhaps?).

The distinction is only made due to the arrogance of humanity. I say just as a beaver naturally builds a dam, or a vulture naturally eats dead stuff- humanity is a natural biological organism doing as it does. The distinction between what is natural does become a debate over what would be unnatural when viewed in this way.

If life causes the anomoly is it natural?

If its an anomoly is it natural?

If the universe changes state and all matter explodes, is it natural?

The distinction in my mind is meaningless- as I see it the only thing that is unnatural are things that don't follow the order of our universe, which by definition shouldn't exist.

The definition of natural is of nature, and regardless of your views as a scientist you cannot with good faith say man is not of nature. Technology and even culture have proven to not be unique to man either, nor has any other definable trait that puts us outside other "natural" life forms. Perhaps ceremonial burial but many pre-homo sapiens did this including the neandertal. Is what the neandertal did unnatural, or is it more reasonable to assume that humanity is natural~ I think the question answers itself.

 

[only1universe]

The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is 2e32 joules, which is the equivalent of ~5e16 megatons of nuclear yield. The largest nuclear weapon ever built was rated at 50 megatons. so this is the equivalent of 10^15 of these bombs.

The surface area of the Earth is only ~5e14m² which means you would need enough of these bombs to cover the entire surface of the Earth with two bombs squeezed into every square meter.

In addition, each nuclear weapon needs about 15 kg of fissile material such as U 235 for the "trigger". Even if you include the amount of uranium in the oceans, you come up with only ~1/417,000 of the amount needed.

I think a planet can explode without breaking its gravitational binding energy, it would just explode then get pulled back together.

Also you ignore that burying them drastically alters the behavior of the energy, just like a tap can cleave a diamond- even though a diamond as measured in hardness would take more stress than almost any other material.

 

[Drakkith]

:

Rude? My dear Drakkith, I apologize for even seeming to be rude, but that was not my intention. Don't be so sensitive. I was making a statement of fact and a "Dutch Uncle" suggestion. If you love science as much as I do, please take it in that spirit.

Do you realize that your entire post looks like complete BS and more thinly veiled insults? If you really didn't mean to be rude, then why the whole preachy BS?

Also you ignore that burying them drastically alters the behavior of the energy, just like a tap can cleave a diamond- even though a diamond as measured in hardness would take more stress than almost any other material.

Sure, but there is a difference between cracking the Earth and causing it to explode. Also the Earth is not hard like a diamond, a large part of it is liquidy and soft for the most part. While burying them underground might possible affect the plates that sit on the mantle, the rest of the Earth itself isn't going to get shattered.

 

[Janus]

I think a planet can explode without breaking its gravitational binding energy, it would just explode then get pulled back together.

We're not talking about being just a bit shy or even having 1/10 of enough, wer'e talking about only being able to deliver 1/417,000 as much. If all of this energy was directed in moving the mass of the Earth, it would only result in a velocity change of 8.5 meters/sec

Applied to exploding the Earth, you might get the Earth to "bulge out" a few meters, assuming that none of this energy was lost as heat. At 83 joules/kg this is enough just to raise the whole Earth's temp by ~0.16°K. So frankly a lot of this energy would just go to heating the Earth. So unless you are really willing to stretch the meaning of the word "explode", this is a no go scenario.

Also you ignore that burying them drastically alters the behavior of the energy, just like a tap can cleave a diamond- even though a diamond as measured in hardness would take more stress than almost any other material.[/QUOTE]

The amount of energy needed is the minimum needed assuming that it is applied in the most advantageous way, with none of it being lost as heat. All burying it does is decrease the losses slightly, it cannot magnify the energy's effect. (and considering that the deepest hole ever drilled is only 12 km deep, it would not likely be very effective in even doing this).

And I didn't even consider the energy needed to overcome the Earth's own structural strength that would tend to hold it together even if there were no gravity. This would be the only part to which the diamond cleaving analogy would apply.

 

[only1universe]

We're not talking about being just a bit shy or even having 1/10 of enough, wer'e talking about only being able to deliver 1/417,000 as much. If all of this energy was directed in moving the mass of the Earth, it would only result in a velocity change of 8.5 meters/sec
Also you ignore that burying them drastically alters the behavior of the energy, just like a tap can cleave a diamond- even though a diamond as measured in hardness would take more stress than almost any other material.

The amount of energy needed is the minimum needed assuming that it is applied in the most advantageous way, with none of it being lost as heat. All burying it does is decrease the losses slightly, it cannot magnify the energy's effect. (and considering that the deepest hole ever drilled is only 12 km deep, it would not likely be very effective in even doing this).

And I didn't even consider the energy needed to overcome the Earth's own structural strength that would tend to hold it together even if there were no gravity. This would be the only part to which the diamond cleaving analogy would apply.[/QUOTE]


Is it out of the question that enough nuclear power could vaporize the core, providing the propellant levels you're suggesting?

So man devotes itself to building nukes, then attempts to vaporize the core- 1. Would that amount of nuclear energy vaporize the core. 2. Could you term the resulting energy as anything but a planet exploding?

I am uncertain, but it seems plausible to increase enough heat in the core to cause ignition using nuclear energy. All told, there must be enough nuclear energy to do so, as each atom has this potential whether by fission or fusion.

How much energy would it take to vaporize a significant portion of the core is an interesting statistic that I'd be interested to see calculated anyway :)

 

[Janus]

Is it out of the question that enough nuclear power could vaporize the core, providing the propellant levels you're suggesting?

So man devotes itself to building nukes, then attempts to vaporize the core- 1. Would that amount of nuclear energy vaporize the core. 2. Could you term the resulting energy as anything but a planet exploding?

The core is solid (the intense pressure keeps it so even at such high a temp.)
Given its estimated mass, and a heat of fusion of 272,000 joules/ kg, the total combined energy of all those nukes would come to only 1/35 the amount needed to melt the core let alone vaporize it, and that it only if the core was already on the verge of melting.

I am uncertain, but it seems plausible to increase enough heat in the core to cause ignition using nuclear energy. All told, there must be enough nuclear energy to do so, as each atom has this potential whether by fission or fusion.

The core is mainly Iron and Iron is at the top of the binding energy curve. What this means is that it takes a net input of energy to cause Iron to either undergo fusion or fission. You would lose energy in the bargain, not gain it.

 

[qraal]

Is it out of the question that enough nuclear power could vaporize the core, providing the propellant levels you're suggesting?

So man devotes itself to building nukes, then attempts to vaporize the core- 1. Would that amount of nuclear energy vaporize the core. 2. Could you term the resulting energy as anything but a planet exploding?

I am uncertain, but it seems plausible to increase enough heat in the core to cause ignition using nuclear energy. All told, there must be enough nuclear energy to do so, as each atom has this potential whether by fission or fusion.

How much energy would it take to vaporize a significant portion of the core is an interesting statistic that I'd be interested to see calculated anyway :)

As already noted the iron/nickel part of the core - most of it - won't either fission or fuse to produce net energy release.

So let's focus on your chief question: energy required to vaporise the Core. Currently the core is at a pressure of 2.5 million bars and an average density of ~11,000 kg/m³. To become a gas at that pressure and density, we need to work out the minimum temperature required and that'll allow us to compute the energy.

By the gas laws we have

PV = N.k.T

but N is M/m where m is the atomic mass (56 amu for Fe 56 we'll assume) and M is the Core mass (~1/3 Earth or ~2E24 kg).

Thus... P = (M/V)*(k.T/m) ...and (M/V) is the density. We can thus find the T...

T = P*(V/M)*(m/k)

...which gives us T = 153,000 K. With a molar heat capacity of ~20.8 J/mol.K that means about 56.86 MJ/kg of Core is needed, thus ~1.14E+32 J total. Vaporising the Core is about half the energy needed to explode the whole planet.

 

[yenchin]

A timely post: http://blastr.com/2011/09/astronomer-explains-why-w.php"

 

[twistedspark]

The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is 2e32 joules, which is the equivalent of ~5e16 megatons of nuclear yield. The largest nuclear weapon ever built was rated at 50 megatons. so this is the equivalent of 10^15 of these bombs.

The surface area of the Earth is only ~5e14m² which means you would need enough of these bombs to cover the entire surface of the Earth with two bombs squeezed into every square meter.

In addition, each nuclear weapon needs about 15 kg of fissile material such as U 235 for the "trigger". Even if you include the amount of uranium in the oceans, you come up with only ~1/417,000 of the amount needed.

True, but that's using H-bombs. Supernovae are not caused by hydrogen fusion. They're caused by run-away fusion of Carbon, or Silicon, or mixtures of these and a few other heavier elements that creates such a rapid release of energy the star explodes.
We can make a planet explode. We need only artificially increase the Earth's gravity to the point of carbon fusion. Maybe the Asguard will lend us one.