Next Article in Journal
Effect of Reduced Graphene Oxide on Microwave Absorbing Properties of Al1.5Co4Fe2Cr High-Entropy Alloys
Previous Article in Journal
Objective Priors for Invariant e-Values in the Presence of Nuisance Parameters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Variations of the Frequency–Magnitude Distribution in the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes

Section of Geophysics-Geothermics, Department of Geology and Geoenvironment, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece
Entropy 2024, 26(1), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/e26010059
Submission received: 18 December 2023 / Accepted: 8 January 2024 / Published: 10 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes)
This Special Issue of Entropy, “Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes”, sees the successful publication of 11 original scientific articles. This collection presents broad perspectives on the complexity of earthquakes and the use of statistical physics as a consistent, but also necessary, theoretical framework to unravel the complex dynamics that lead to the nucleation and evolution of the phenomenon.
Earthquakes are inherently a complex phenomenon, incorporating intermittency, hierarchy, nonlinear dynamics and interactions over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales [1,2,3,4,5]. However, a simple phenomenology seems to apply to their collective behavior. The most prominent property is scale-invariance. This applies to a variety of key attributes of seismicity manifested as power–law distributions [6,7,8], as the distribution of fault-trace lengths [9], the Gutenberg–Richter scaling relation that resembles power–law scaling in the frequency of dissipative seismic energies [7] or the Omori–Utsu relation for the power–law decay rate of aftershocks [10]. Such properties motivate the statistical physics approach to fracturing and earthquakes as a consistent and promising theoretical framework for deriving the macroscopic properties observed in fault and earthquake populations from the specification of the laws that govern friction, fluid–rock interactions, fracture nucleation, propagation and so on, at the microscopic level [11].
Since the 1980s, when concepts such as fractals, entropy and self-organized criticality (SOC) became relevant to seismicity, considerable progress has been made in the statistical physics of earthquakes. Within this context, earthquakes are considered a critical-point phenomenon undergoing continuous phase transition [8]. According to SOC, the Earth’s crust spontaneously self-organizes in a dynamical stationary state to generate earthquakes with self-similar size distributions and fractal geometries [12]. Earthquakes occur on a fractal set of faults, characterized by long-range correlations and scale-invariant properties in their size and spatiotemporal organization [6,7,8,9]. Moreover, based on the maximum entropy principle, classic and generalized statistical mechanics can be used to infer the macroscopic properties of fractures and earthquakes from the specification of their microscopic constituents and their interactions [13]. Other statistical-physics-based models and analysis techniques that have been applied to understand the multiscale dynamics of earthquakes include renormalization group theory, phase diagrams, stochastic models, cellular automata models, correlation lengths, turbulence, percolation and fiber models, multifractals, damage mechanics models, random walks and wavelets and network theory, among others [2,3,7,8,14,15,16,17].
Some of these concepts and tools have been applied to the articles found in this Special Issue. This collection features original studies on regional seismicity that evolves into large and destructive earthquakes, as with the recent cases of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 doublet that struck the Kahramanmaraş region in East Turkey (contribution 1), the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake in California (contribution 2) and the large subduction earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 7 that occurred on the Cocos subducting plate in Mexico over the last years (contribution 3). The development of early warning systems is exceptionally important in managing such extreme seismic risks, as pointed out by Donciu et al. (contribution 4) in their uniaxial shaking table testing regarding seismic frequency response. To effectively mitigate seismic risk, pattern recognition and probabilistic forecasting of earthquake occurrence using appropriate statistical models are essential, as discussed by Varini and Rotondi (contribution 5) in relation to large earthquakes in Italy and by Anyfadi et al. (contribution 6) regarding major subduction zone aftershock sequences. In this vein, emerging machine learning approaches, such as the NESTORE algorithm applied to the seismicity of Greece by Anyfadi et al. (contribution 7), are becoming more and more valuable. Nonetheless, the theoretical comprehensiveness of fundamental empirical scaling relations in observational seismology, such as the Omori–Utsu relation of the aftershock production rate discussed by Abe et al. (contribution 8) and the development of models that can mimic the physical mechanisms of earthquakes (contribution 9), are important in better understanding earthquake interactions and evolution. In addition, complex network approaches to the physics of earthquakes, as applied to intraplate seismicity in Norway by Pavez-Orrego and Pastén (contribution 10), have been in constant development in recent times. Finally, the integrative study of other natural complex systems with earthquakes, such as solar flare fluctuations, as discussed by Morikawa and Nakamichi (contribution 11), may provide universal patterns regarding the physical behavior of such systems.
Despite the considerable progress that has been achieved over the last forty years, fundamental challenges regarding the complexity and the statistical physics of earthquakes remain wide open, with many important findings anticipated in the years to come. Not only do the exact dynamics that lead to the deformation of the Earth’s brittle crust and the subsequent generation of earthquakes remain unknown, but the physical laws that govern friction, rheological and chemical processes, as well as fracture nucleation and propagation at a microscopic scale, are generally elusive and at a primal stage [18,19]. Statistical physics thus remains an expedient framework for bridging the gap between the complex microscopic laws that govern the deformation and brittle failure of solid earth materials and the macroscopic behavior of their ensemble average manifested in fault networks and regional seismicity [11,13,19,20]. Given the overwhelming amount of data that are continually collected, the constantly increasing computational power available and the new models and artificial intelligence methods that emerge, statistical physics, in synergy with seismology and other related fields branching from geology and physics, can lead to a unified framework that will provide a better understanding of the earthquake generation phenomenon, with the ultimate goal of providing efficient earthquake forecasting that can effectively mitigate risk for people and infrastructures.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the submitting authors and reviewers for their valuable contributions, as well as Entropy’s editorial office for their endless support throughout the compiling of this Special Issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

List of Contributions

  • Zaccagnino, D.; Telesca, L.; Tan, O.; Doglioni, C. Clustering Analysis of Seismicity in the Anatolian Region with Implications for Seismic Hazard. Entropy 2023, 25, 835.
  • Sardeli, E.; Michas, G.; Pavlou, K.; Vallianatos, F. Spatiotemporal Variations of the Frequency–Magnitude Distribution in the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence. Entropy 2023, 25, 1612.
  • Ramírez-Rojas, A.; Flores-Márquez, E.L.; Vargas, C.A. Visibility Graph Analysis of the Seismic Activity of Three Areas of the Cocos Plate Mexican Subduction Where the Last Three Large Earthquakes (M > 7) Occurred in 2017 and 2022. Entropy 2023, 25, 799.
  • Donciu, C.; Serea, E.; Temneanu, M.C. Frequency Seismic Response for EEWS Testing on Uniaxial Shaking Table. Entropy 2023, 25, 655.
  • Varini, E.; Rotondi, R. Connection between Variations of the Probability Distribution of the Recurrence Time and Phases of the Seismic Activity. Entropy 2023, 25, 1441.
  • Anyfadi, E.-A.; Avgerinou, S.-E.; Michas, G.; Vallianatos, F. Universal Non-Extensive Statistical Physics Temporal Pattern of Major Subduction Zone Aftershock Sequences. Entropy 2022, 24, 1850.
  • Anyfadi, E.-A.; Gentili, S.; Brondi, P.; Vallianatos, F. Forecasting Strong Subsequent Earthquakes in Greece with the Machine Learning Algorithm NESTORE. Entropy 2023, 25, 797.
  • Abe, S.; Suzuki, N.; Tayurskii, D.A. Aftershocks and Fluctuating Diffusivity. Entropy 2023, 25, 989.
  • Motuzas, C.A.; Shcherbakov, R. Viscoelastic Slider Blocks as a Model for a Seismogenic Fault. Entropy 2023, 25, 1419.
  • Pavez-Orrego, C.; Pastén, D. Defining the Scale to Build Complex Networks with a 40-Year Norwegian Intraplate Seismicity Dataset. Entropy 2023, 25, 1284.
  • Morikawa, M.; Nakamichi, A. Solar Flare 1/f Fluctuations from Amplitude-Modulated Five-Minute Oscillation. Entropy 2023, 25, 1593.

References

  1. Keilis-Borok, V.I. The lithosphere of the earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Rev. Geophys. 1990, 28, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kagan, Y.Y. Observational evidence for earthquakes as a nonlinear dynamic process. Physical D 1994, 77, 160–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Turcotte, D.L.; Shcherbakov, R.; Rundle, J.B. Complexity and earthquakes. Treatise Geophys. 2007, 4, 675–700. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ben-Zion, Y. Collective behavior of earthquakes and faults: Continuum-discrete transitions, progressive evolutionary changes, and different dynamic regimes. Rev. Geophys. 2008, 46, RG4006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chelidze, T.; Vallianatos, F.; Telesca, L. Complexity of Seismic Time Series: Measurement and Application; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Main, I. Statistical physics, seismogenesis, and seismic hazard. Rev. Geophys. 1996, 34, 433–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Turcotte, D.L. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rundle, J.B.; Turcotte, D.L.; Shcherbakov, R.; Klein, W.; Sammis, C. Statistical physics approach to understanding the multiscale dynamics of earthquake fault systems. Rev. Geophys. 2003, 41, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bonnet, E.; Bour, O.; Odling, N.E.; Davy, P.; Main, I.; Cowie, P.; Berkowitz, B. Scaling of fracture systems in geological media. Rev. Geophys. 2001, 39, 347–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Utsu, T.; Ogata, Y.; Matsu’ura, R.S. The centenary of the Omori formula for a decay law of aftershock activity. J. Phys. Earth 1995, 43, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sornette, D.; Werner, M.J. Statistical physics approaches to seismicity. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science; Meyers, R.A., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 7872–7891. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bak, P. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality; Copernicus: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  13. Vallianatos, F.; Papadakis, G.; Michas, G. Generalized statistical mechanics approaches to earthquakes and tectonics. Proc. R. Soc. A 2016, 472, 20160497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sornette, D. Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chelidze, T.; Kolesnikov, Y.; Matcharashvili, T. Seismological criticality concept and percolation model of fracture. Geophys. J. Int. 2006, 164, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abe, S.; Suzuki, N. Complex earthquake networks: Hierarchical organization and assortative mixing. Phys. Rev. E 2006, 74, 026113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Michas, G.; Vallianatos, F. Scaling properties, multifractality and range of correlations in earthquake timeseries: Are earthquakes random. In Statistical Methods and Modeling of Seismogenesis; Limnios, N., Papadimitriou, E., Tsaklidis, G., Eds.; ISTE Wiley: London, UK, 2021; pp. 171–210. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kawamura, H.; Hatano, T.; Kato, N.; Biswas, S.; Chakrabarti, B.K. Statistical physics of fracture, friction and earthquakes. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2012, 84, 839–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vallianatos, F.; Michas, G. Complexity of Fracturing in Terms of Non-Extensive Statistical Physics: From Earthquake Faults to Arctic Sea Ice Fracturing. Entropy 2020, 22, 1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Fan, J.; Meng, J.; Ludescher, J.; Chen, X.; Ashkenazy, Y.; Kurths, J.; Havlin, S.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Statistical physics approaches to the complex Earth system. Phys. Rep. 2021, 896, 1–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Michas, G. Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes. Entropy 2024, 26, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26010059

AMA Style

Michas G. Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes. Entropy. 2024; 26(1):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26010059

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michas, Georgios. 2024. "Complexity and Statistical Physics Approaches to Earthquakes" Entropy 26, no. 1: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26010059

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop