Power-law time distribution of large earthquakes

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 18, 2003, Pages

  Mega, Mirko S ^a   Allegrini, Paolo ^b   Grigolini, Paolo ^a,b,c   Latora, Vito ^d   Palatella, Luigi ^a   Rapisarda, Andrea ^d   Vinciguerra, Sergio ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^b CNR   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

^e OSSERVATORIO VESUVIANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; DIFFUSION; EARTHQUAKES; INVERSE PROBLEMS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; STATISTICS;

DIFFUSION ENTROPY; GENERALIZED POISSON MODEL; POWER-LAW TIME DISTRIBUTION; SHANNON ENTROPY;

POISSON DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 0037596618     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Y. Y. Kagan and D. D. Jackson, Geophys. J. Int. 104, 117 (1991).
2. D. P. Hill et al., Science 260, 1617 (1993).
3. L. Crescentini, A. Amoruso, and R. Scarpa, Science 286, 2132 (1999).
4. T. Parsons, J. Geophys. Res. 107, 2199 (2001).
5. S. Shlien and M. N. Toksoz, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60, 1765 (1970).
6. J. K. Gardner and L. Knopoff, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 1363 (1974).
7. P. Gasperini and F. Mulargia, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 79, 973 (1989).
8. R. Console and M. Murru, J. Geophys. Res. 106, 8699 (2001).
9. C. Godano and V. Caruso, Geophys. J. Int. 121, 385 (1995).
10. F. Omori, J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo 7, 111 (1895).
11. T. Utsu, Geophys. Mag. 30, 521 (1961).
12. P. Bak, K. Christensen, L. Danon, and T. Scanlon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 178501 (2002).
13. N. Scafetta, P. Hamilton, and P. Grigolini, Fractals 9, 193-208 (2001).
14. P. Grigolini, L. Palatella, and G. Raffaelli, Fractals 9, 439-449 (2001).
15. P. Allegrini, P. Grigolini, P. Hamilton, L. Palatella, and G. Raffaelli, Phys. Rev. E 65, 041926 (2002).
16. S. V. Buldyrev, A. L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E 47, 4514 (1993).
17. The work of Ref [13] proves that the adoption of the Tsallis entropy would be beneficial to explore the transition to the scaling regime, but it would not determine the scaling parameter δ.
18. P. Allegrini, R. Balocchi, S. Chillemi, P. Grigolini, L. Palatella, and G. Raffaelli, Medical Data Analysis, edited by A. Colosimo et al., Lecture Notes Computer Sciences Vol. 2526 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002), pp. 115-126.
19. M. Ignaccolo, P. Allegrini, P. Grigolini, P. Hamilton, and B. J. West (to be published).
20. The catalog has been downloaded from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center http://www.scecdc.scec.org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN/
21. D. L. Turcotte and G. Schubert, Geodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
22. In any case, by using Eq. (7) one would obtain an exponent μ = 1.94 ± 1.01, a value well different from the Omori's law exponent.
23. D. Sornette and A. Helmstetter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 158501 (2002).
24. We made other tests by adopting different exponents of Paretos's law (3.0 ± 0.7) and different numbers of clusters, obtaining different transient behavior but the same value of δ.