4 ms·
> This is both horrifying and incredible. They managed to fracture enough rock to generate energy contained in a mag-5.4 earthquake. Or they fractured enough r
by kbenson 8y ago
> This is both horrifying and incredible. They managed to fracture enough rock to generate energy contained in a mag-5.4 earthquake.
Or they fractured enough rock to cause what would have been an earthquake of magnitude >= 5.4 at a future date to happen at that time, which I think is more likely.
As I understand it, earthquake's are opposing forces of tectonic plates that finally overcome their coefficient of friction. Affecting that coefficient of friction slightly could cause it to happen sooner or later.
- gpm 8y agoAlternative alternative explanation: they caused what would have been 4096 magnitude 3 earth quakes (0.2 magnitude difference corresponds to 2x energy per wikipedia) to merge together into a single magnitude 5.4 earthquake. Since they reduced the coefficient of friction enough to allow all that energy out at once instead of in small steps.
- andromeduck 8y agoReducing static friction results in more frequent releases of the same energy.
- gpm 8y agoAssuming the energy input is constant that would be impossible. Why is the energy input non constant? Is static/dynamic friction even a semi-accurate model for plate tectonics?
- Scramblejams 8y agoI had a physics professor whose day job was geophysics. We were discussing earthquakes, and he said he really wanted to investigate the possibility of eliminating the threat from the San Andreas fault by intentionally triggering it at some regular interval, before the opposing forces built up to dangerous levels. He was onto something!
- kenneth 8y agoYes, precisely. The problem is what to do with all the currently built up energy. We know that a big one is coming, we don't know when. Before we can implement the program for slow steady release of energy, we will have to suffer through one big one. Fukushima is in a better place today in that it's past the big one, and could try to release energy slowly. Regardless, it'll never happen in the USA, given the anti-science political climate. Remember when they were about to launch the CERN LHC and everyone freaked out about "they're going to create black holes and kill us all!?" Now imagine California soccer moms and their Facebook groups spreading misinformation about "they're triggering earthquakes and will kill us all (and also vaccines cause autism!)" …
- Scramblejams 8y agoHeh, yeah. Same as the backlash to proposals for geoengineering our planet’s temperature and atmospheric composition. The way I see it, if we expect to inhabit this place for the next several hundred thousand years, we’ll either 100% have to have that ability, or instead be satisfied riding our Hobbyhorse of Environmental Virtuousness right into extinction or evacuation as whatever meager efforts we make are swamped by natural variations. Might as well start doing the science now. Back to earthquakes though. Somewhere in HN there’s a comment on a story about the Cascadia subduction zone suggesting that we publicly select a date some many years in the future on which we’ll get everyone to a safe place, then pop that fault with a bunch of buried nukes. Would make some great TV!
- Animats 8y agoThat was considered in the 1970s.[1] Generally considered to be a really bad idea. [1] https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full...
- istjohn 8y agoUnfortunately, your article doesn't explain why the idea isn't taken more seriously.