Closed as too broad, but - see comments - there is scope for a good answer. I'd have written more (times, energies), but comments aren't the right place for it.
As pointed out in the comments here, this question is absolutely too broad. That's pretty much always the case for "what could happen if ...?" questions which don't further restrict their scope.
Your comment on the original question kind of makes the point:
We might discover new particles, and perhaps new forms of interaction. We might also get a lot more detail and precision (and perhaps new knowledge) about existing known particles and interactions. We could also certainly refine existing knowledge and theories, and exclude a large number of possible theories, so we would be better guided in seeking new knowledge. What would not happen is any kind of global doomsday or "end of the earth" scenario; we know enough from collisions not that much smaller, to say that's almost certainly unrealistic.
The question would allow a detailed answer covering any of those points. There could be a dozen different answers not even trying to say the same thing, all of which are equally valid; furthermore, an answer which tried to be complete would be very long indeed, much longer than the site allows. Whenever that happens, it's a pretty good indicator that the question may be too broad.