Are seismic waiting time distributions universal

We show that seismic waiting time distributions in California and Iceland have many features in common as, for example, a power-law decay with exponent alpha approximate to 1.1 for intermediate and with exponent gamma approximate to 0.6 for short waiting times. While the transition point between these two regimes scales proportionally with the size of the considered area, the full distribution is not universal and depends in a non-trivial way on the geological area under consideration and its size. This is due to the spatial distribution of epicenters which does not form a simple mono-fractal. Yet, the dependence of the waiting time distributions on the threshold magnitude seems to be universal.

[1]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  Does apparent stress vary with earthquake size? , 2001 .

[2]  G. D. Toro,et al.  Friction falls towards zero in quartz rock as slip velocity approaches seismic rates , 2004, Nature.

[3]  M. Wysession,et al.  An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure , 2002 .

[4]  M. Wyss,et al.  Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan , 2000 .

[5]  B. Gutenberg,et al.  Seismicity of the Earth , 1970, Nature.

[6]  Alvaro Corral.  Local distributions and rate fluctuations in a unified scaling law for earthquakes. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  D. L. Anderson,et al.  Theoretical Basis of Some Empirical Relations in Seismology by Hiroo Kanamori And , 1975 .

[8]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Aftershock Zone Scaling , 2002 .

[9]  Christian Goltz,et al.  Fractal and Chaotic Properties of Earthquakes , 1998 .

[10]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Båth's law derived from the Gutenberg-Richter law and from aftershock properties , 2003 .

[11]  Susan E. Hough,et al.  Aftershocks: Are they earthquakes or afterthoughts? , 1997 .

[12]  Schuster,et al.  Generalized dimensions and entropies from a measured time series. , 1987, Physical review. A, General physics.

[13]  Jeen‐Hwa Wang,et al.  On the frequency distribution of interoccurrence times of earthquakes , 1998 .

[14]  C. Frohlich,et al.  Teleseismic b values; Or, much ado about 1.0 , 1993 .

[15]  Kim Christensen,et al.  Unified scaling law for earthquakes. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[16]  Jean-Luc Chatelain,et al.  A fractal approach to the clustering of earthquakes: Applications to the seismicity of the New Hebrides , 1987 .

[17]  Francesco Mulargia,et al.  Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction , 2003 .

[18]  H. G. E. Hentschel,et al.  The infinite number of generalized dimensions of fractals and strange attractors , 1983 .

[19]  M. Baiesi,et al.  Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  L. Knopoff,et al.  Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? , 1974, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[21]  Keisuke Ito,et al.  Multifractal analysis of earthquakes , 1992 .

[22]  Y. Ogata,et al.  The Centenary of the Omori Formula for a Decay Law of Aftershock Activity , 1995 .

[23]  D. Sornette,et al.  The paradox of the expected time until the next earthquake , 1997, Bulletin of The Seismological Society of America (BSSA).