"Recently, earthquakes have been frequent, has the earth reached the period of seismic activity, and will earthquakes be more frequent in the future", Zhihu's menstrual problem.

The answer is often the same:

(1) By listing a bunch of data, tell you that the frequency of recent earthquakes is at a normal level and is not exceeded;

(2) The problem of time scale, your concept of time is too short for the geological and tectonic events of the earth;

(3) You feel wrong, your feelings will be disturbed by various other factors, you feel that there are many earthquakes, you may be "deceived" by hot searches and marketing accounts;

(4) No one can predict it for the time being, and anyone who says that it can accurately predict short-term earthquakes is a liar, and neither can the wisdom of the ancestors;

(5) Experts go back to strengthen research, and the public should treat it rationally and raise awareness of prevention.

Then the conclusion is:

The current seismic activity is within a normal range, and there is no clear evidence that the Earth has entered an "active period". Whether the frequency of earthquakes will increase in the future depends on long-term observation, and whether it will have a wider impact on seismic activities in a certain region needs to be strengthened, but the scientific community generally believes that there will be no significant changes in the short term. The public should be rational about earthquake risks and reduce potential losses by improving disaster preparedness.

The above answer is basically applicable to all questions such as "Has the earth reached a period of seismic activity due to the frequency of earthquakes recently, and will earthquakes be more frequent in the future?"

Everyone has seen too much, and they also find it boring, and even think that the Earthquake Bureau is inactive, and geology is a pseudoscience.

Not really.

Facing the public, experts are often accustomed to breaking the connections that the public makes by feeling.

In this way, the cost of explanation can be lower, and the breeding and spread of misunderstandings and rumors can be reduced, which can lead to panic among the public, and finally end up with experts.

For example: Is there a link between climate and earthquakes? Will an earthquake here cause an earthquake there?

The usual answer to these questions is that there is no obvious evidence to prove it, so let's wash and sleep.

Back in the scientific community, experts like to make connections by feeling.

The connection that had just been broken in front of the public, and when I returned to the office, I racked my brains to establish it.

This is precisely the task of the scientific researcher, to ask questions, to make connections, to keep trial and error, to keep getting closer to the truth.

Many well-known theories were initially inspired not by rigorous logical reasoning and rational analysis, but by a flash of inspiration that connected two seemingly unrelated things.

It takes a solid professional foundation and a lot of time to verify and make mistakes, and most of the connections are fruitless.

The connection made in the end may be wrong, but as long as the idea is good, it does not necessarily affect the researcher's post.

The existing data does not seem to be very clear evidence on numerical simulations!

The simulation results are feasible, and a new model is proposed!

The model is out, hurry up and write an article!

The rest depends on the attitude of the peer reviewers.

For example, you can study the relationship between rainfall and snow volume and seismic activity, earthquakes caused by typhoons, and climate impacts on mountain uplift, etc., all of which are published in Nature and Science.

However, in the face of the public, no one dares to open their mouths about things that do not have clear scientific conclusions.

Because, the marketing account and the title party will take action at any time.

Back to the question, is there a correlation between the magnitude 3.0 earthquake in Myanmar and the 0.0 earthquake in Tonga?

That's actually a good question.

The two earthquakes seem unlikely to be related:

The Myanmar 9.0 earthquake, which was caused by the Shelje fault, was the result of the convergence of the Indian plate towards the Eurasian continent. For a long time, the Sagaing fault, as the boundary of plate interaction, has been subjected to a large number of tectonic stresses generated by plate movements, and seismic activity is caused by the release of tectonic stresses.

This earthquake is a strike-slip earthquake caused by the relative movement of the Indian plate and the Sunda plate.

The Tonga 3.0 earthquake, which occurred in the subduction zone of the Tonga Trench in the South Pacific Ocean, is a subduction-extrusion earthquake caused by the subduction of the Pacific plate to the Australian plate.

One occurs on land and one in the ocean; One is a strike-slip earthquake and the other is a crush-type earthquake; One is an intra-plate earthquake and the other is a plate boundary earthquake; One is the release of lateral stress caused by the convergence of the Indian plate to the north of Eurasia, and the other is the result of the subduction of the Pacific plate to the west of the Australian plate.

The two are thousands of kilometers apart, in different geological tectonic zones, and have different tectonic mechanisms, so there is obviously no direct relationship.

But there seems to be some potential connection between the two.

The key to the problem lies in the Indian plate and the Australian plate.

In many simple maps of global plate divisions, it is clear that the two belong to the same large plate – the Indo-Australian Plate or the Indian Ocean Plate).

In 7 days, 0 major earthquakes with a magnitude of more than 0 occurred at both ends of the same plate.

If there is no connection at all, I am afraid it is not absolute.

Some scholars believe that there is a connection between the northward convergence of the Indian plate and the westward subduction of the western Pacific plate, some believe that there is a connection between the subduction patterns of the eastern and western sides of the Pacific plate, and still others believe that there is a connection between the great igneous provinces of the Deccan Plateau in India 65 million years ago and the impact of an asteroid in the Gulf of Mexico......

There are also many geological studies such as "fighting cattle across the mountains" or "butterfly effect".

At both ends of the Indian Ocean plate, there is nothing to do with the near-simultaneous tectonic activity? It's really hard to say.

Of course, things are far more complicated than that.

The Indian Ocean Plate is not monolithic, but is made up of several sub-plates, such as the Indian Plate, the Australian Plate, and the Capricorn Plate.

This can be seen clearly in the slightly more detailed map of the global plate divisions.

The Indian and Australian plates have undergone very complex plate tectonic evolution.

20 million years ago, the Australian-Antarctic Plate and the Great Indian Plate were 0 completely separate land masses that split out of the East Gondwana continent.

Since then, the Indian and Australian plates have gradually merged to form a single Indo-Australian plate, as shown in the figure below:

Today, there are no clear plate boundaries between the Indian and Australian plates (e.g., trenches or fault zones), but stress adjustments are achieved through diffuse boundaries (e.g., the East Indian Ocean Ridge) and intra-plate deformation zones of the oceanic lithosphere (e.g., the East Indian Ocean Deformation Zone).

Recent studies have shown that the stress difference between the Indian and Australian plates has gradually increased, and many scientists believe that they have separated into two separate plates, but there is still a degree of linkage.

Therefore, no one dares to say that there must be a connection between the two earthquakes for the time being, because it is too difficult to find evidence and it takes time to argue.

It can only be said that under the existing geological theories, it may be difficult to find a certain convincing connection between them.

(PS: Some civil science bigwigs claim to have mastered the grand unified theory that can explain everything, and it is recommended that everyone stay away.) ）

However, this is indeed a topic worthy of in-depth exploration, and it needs to be slowly revealed by relevant researchers.

In the future, you can flip through journals such as Nature or Science, and maybe some scientists will be able to find the connection between the two.

As for the recent strong earthquakes, why have there been a series of strong earthquakes? Will earthquakes be more frequent in the future?

Please apply the conclusions at the beginning of this article.