If the world have massive single giant world tree can it stop earthquake?Can a planet's axial tilt be changed by carefully planned and set high-energy explosions?Semiliquid atmosphere - Is my premise/conclusions correct; and will it get the result I want?The Reindeer--Let's Get Real, Shall We?What dangerous side effects might occur when using a bubble of spacetime to enter hyperspace?Could an entire civilization live in an upside down forest?How to make my humans more cold-resistant?Only Three Books: Restarting Physics after civilization collapsesIs an offset mountain range plausible?The Biology behind a slime that uses hydrofluoric acid to disable and digest prey.Can Aspen forests have other species of tree present?what effect if the world have a single massive world giant tree?

Is there a maximum distance from a planet that a moon can orbit?

Unusual mail headers, evidence of an attempted attack. Have I been pwned?

Is this one of the engines from the 9/11 aircraft?

Trainee keeps missing deadlines for independent learning

Should I prioritize my 401(k) over my student loans?

How risky is real estate?

expiry or manufactured date?

What is the legal status of travelling with methadone in your carry-on?

Links to webpages in books

What reason would an alien civilization have for building a Dyson Sphere (or Swarm) if cheap Nuclear fusion is available?

Does this Wild Magic result affect the sorcerer or just other creatures?

Is a single radon-daughter atom in air a solid?

C-152 carb heat on before landing in hot weather?

Why is the voltage measurement of this circuit different when the switch is on?

What is this tool/thing in an Aztec painting?

STM Microcontroller burns every time

How is hair tissue mineral analysis performed?

How was Hillel permitted to go to the skylight to hear the shiur

How dangerous are set-size assumptions?

In the Marvel universe, can a human have a baby with any non-human?

Folding basket - is there such a thing?

Apply brace expansion in "reverse order"

Why the feminine "la" in "à la Leonardo DiCaprio", though he is a man?

What is the origin of Scooby-Doo's name?



If the world have massive single giant world tree can it stop earthquake?


Can a planet's axial tilt be changed by carefully planned and set high-energy explosions?Semiliquid atmosphere - Is my premise/conclusions correct; and will it get the result I want?The Reindeer--Let's Get Real, Shall We?What dangerous side effects might occur when using a bubble of spacetime to enter hyperspace?Could an entire civilization live in an upside down forest?How to make my humans more cold-resistant?Only Three Books: Restarting Physics after civilization collapsesIs an offset mountain range plausible?The Biology behind a slime that uses hydrofluoric acid to disable and digest prey.Can Aspen forests have other species of tree present?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;








1












$begingroup$


you know stuff like ygdrasil tree but just a normal tree but the biggest and tallest in the world if the root 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 worst to the zone covered by the root? or what effect it give?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago

















1












$begingroup$


you know stuff like ygdrasil tree but just a normal tree but the biggest and tallest in the world if the root 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 worst to the zone covered by the root? or what effect it give?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


you know stuff like ygdrasil tree but just a normal tree but the biggest and tallest in the world if the root 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 worst to the zone covered by the root? or what effect it give?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




you know stuff like ygdrasil tree but just a normal tree but the biggest and tallest in the world if the root 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 worst to the zone covered by the root? or what effect it give?







biology physics science geophysics






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









Li JunLi Jun

3132 silver badges15 bronze badges




3132 silver badges15 bronze badges







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
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
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
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
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
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
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
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
5 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

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!






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago






  • 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
    6 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    6 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$















    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149289%2fif-the-world-have-massive-single-giant-world-tree-can-it-stop-earthquake%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9












    $begingroup$

    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!






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      6 hours ago






    • 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
      6 hours ago















    9












    $begingroup$

    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!






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      6 hours ago






    • 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
      6 hours ago













    9












    9








    9





    $begingroup$

    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!






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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!







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 7 hours ago









    JBHJBH

    55.2k8 gold badges126 silver badges266 bronze badges




    55.2k8 gold badges126 silver badges266 bronze badges







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      6 hours ago






    • 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
      6 hours ago












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      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
      6 hours ago






    • 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
      6 hours ago







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @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
    7 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    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
    6 hours ago




    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
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @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
    6 hours ago













    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago















    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 7 hours ago









    L.DutchL.Dutch

    99.7k31 gold badges234 silver badges482 bronze badges




    99.7k31 gold badges234 silver badges482 bronze badges







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago












    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      6 hours ago







    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Ooooh. +1 for pointing out that the root, being biological and therefore "squishy" could absorb/resist energy and dampen the earthquakes! Cool!
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    6 hours ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      2












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        Trevor DTrevor D

        2,9943 silver badges20 bronze badges




        2,9943 silver badges20 bronze badges



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149289%2fif-the-world-have-massive-single-giant-world-tree-can-it-stop-earthquake%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480