So I’m aware of the gambler’s fallacy. If an event has a set probability of happening and hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean it’s *due* and now more likely to happen. Just because the coin landed on heads just now doesn’t mean it’s more likely to land on tails the next time.
So intuitively we could think just because an earthquake hasn’t happened in a while doesn’t mean it’s “overdue” and increasingly likely to happen in the future.
BUT, it’s my understanding that part of what causes earthquakes is a buildup of tension in the tectonic plates, which builds and builds until it’s finally too much to bear and there’s a sudden jerking motion as the plates snap or slip or whatever, and resettle to new positions, resulting in an earthquake. So if tension is always building up, does that mean for every day we don’t have an earthquake, the *next* day is more likely to have one?
In: 4
Stress does build up in the plates until they give, so the longer the period without an earthquake the more likely an earthquake is to release the stress built up by the pressure. However when an earthquake happens the stress is relieved in that location, but it may transfer the stress to a new location making another earthquake in a new location more likely; so you can get a cascade of earthquakes in a region once one occurs a series of earthquakes could be triggered. https://youtu.be/SaXc4LwAVT0
Latest Answers