Tectonic Plates Can ‘Infect' One Another with Earth-Shaking Subduction Zones
Subduction zones, where one tectonic plate dives underneath another, drive the world's most devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. How do these danger zones come to be? A study in Geology presents evidence that subduction can spread like a contagion, jumping from one oceanic plate to another—a hypothesis previously difficult to prove.
This result 'is not just speculation,' says University of Lisbon geologist João Duarte, who was not involved in the research. 'This study builds an argument based on the geological record.'
Because subduction drags crust deep into the earth, its beginnings are hard to examine. The new study provides a rare ancient example of potential subduction 'infection.' Its authors say they've discovered evidence that neighboring collisions triggered East Asia's 'Ring of Fire,' a colossal subduction system currently fueling earthquakes and volcanoes from Alaska to the southern Indian Ocean.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
Nearly 300 million years ago China was a scattering of islands separated by the ancient Tethys and Asian oceans. Established subduction zones consumed these oceans, welding the landmasses into a new continent and raising mountains from Turkey to China. By 260 million years ago this subduction seems to have spread and begun pulling down the neighboring Pacific plate.
'The dying act of those closing oceans may have been to infect the Pacific plate and start it subducting westward under the Asian continent,' says study lead author Mark Allen, a geologist at Durham University in England. 'In one form or another, it's been diving down ever since.'
The smoking gun in this case is the 'Dupal anomaly,' identified by a geochemical fingerprint from the ancient Tethys Ocean and what is now the Indian Ocean. When the study authors unexpectedly found this signature in volcanic rocks from the western Pacific, they surmised that material from the Tethys had spread eastward across a plate boundary from one subduction zone to another—triggering the neighboring plate's descent. 'It's like seeing someone's fingerprint at a crime scene,' Allen says.
But the mechanism of spread remains mysterious. The researchers suspect that transform faults—boundaries where plates slide past one another, like the San Andreas Fault—may act as weak spots where slight changes in collision angle or speed can destabilize dense oceanic crust, causing it to sink. Duarte compares the scenario to aluminum foil in water. 'The foil floats,' he says, 'but the slightest tap will cause it to sink.'
If subduction spreads this way, could the Atlantic Ocean's relatively quiet plate margins be next? The massive 1755 Lisbon earthquake hints at early subduction invasion there. Duarte suggests parts of Iberia and the Caribbean are undergoing this process's initial stages: 'In another 100 million years a new Atlantic 'Ring of Fire' may form—just as it once did in the Pacific.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Quantum Computers Simulate Particle 'String Breaking' in a Physics Breakthrough
Subatomic particles such as quarks can pair up when linked by 'strings' of force fields — and release energy when the strings are pulled to the point of breaking. Two teams of physicists have now used quantum computers to mimic this phenomenon and watch it unfold in real time. The results, described in two Nature papers on June 4, are the latest in a series of breakthroughs towards using quantum computers for simulations that are beyond the ability of any ordinary computers. 'String breaking is a very important process that is not yet fully understood from first principles,' says Christian Bauer, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California. Physicists can calculate the final results of particle collisions that form or break strings using classical computers, but cannot fully simulate what happens in between. The success of the quantum simulations is 'incredibly encouraging,' Bauer says. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Each experiment was conducted by an international collaboration involving academic and industry researchers — one team at QuEra Computing, a start-up company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and another at the Google Quantum AI Lab in Santa Barbara, California. The researchers using QuEra's Aquila machine encoded information in atoms that were arranged in a 2D honeycomb pattern, each suspended in place by an optical 'tweezer'. The quantum state of each atom — a qubit that could be excited or relaxed — represented the electric field at a point in space, explains co-author Daniel González-Cuadra, a theoretical physicist now at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Madrid. In the other experiment, researchers encoded the 2D quantum field in the states of superconducting loops on Google's Sycamore chip. The teams used diametrically opposite quantum-simulation philosophies. The atoms in Aquila were arranged so that the electrostatic forces between them mimicked the behaviour of the electric field, and continuously evolved towards their own states of lower energy — an approach called analogue quantum simulation. The Google machine was instead used as a 'digital' quantum simulator: the superconducting loops were made to follow the evolution of the quantum field 'by hand', through a discrete sequence of manipulations. In both cases, the teams set up strings in the field that effectively acted like rubber bands connecting two particles. Depending on how the researchers tuned the parameters, the strings could be stiff or wobbly, or could break up. 'In some cases, the whole string just dissolves: the particles become deconfined,' says Frank Pollmann, a physicist at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in Garching, Germany, who helped to lead the Google experiment. Although simulating strings in a 2D electric field could have applications for studying the physics of materials, it is still a long way from fully simulating high-energy interactions, such as those that occur in particle colliders, which are in 3D and involve the much more complex strong nuclear force. 'We do not have a clear path at this point how to get there,' says Monika Aidelsburger, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Munich, Germany. Still, the latest results are exciting, and progress in quantum simulation in general has been 'really amazing and very fast,' Aidelsburger says. Last year, Bauer and his LBNL colleague Anthony Ciavarella were among the first teams to simulate the strong nuclear force on a quantum computer. Approaches that replace qubits with qudits — which can have more than two quantum states and can be more realistic representations of a quantum field — could also make simulations more powerful, researchers say. This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 5, 2025.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tectonic Plates Can ‘Infect' One Another with Earth-Shaking Subduction Zones
Subduction zones, where one tectonic plate dives underneath another, drive the world's most devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. How do these danger zones come to be? A study in Geology presents evidence that subduction can spread like a contagion, jumping from one oceanic plate to another—a hypothesis previously difficult to prove. This result 'is not just speculation,' says University of Lisbon geologist João Duarte, who was not involved in the research. 'This study builds an argument based on the geological record.' Because subduction drags crust deep into the earth, its beginnings are hard to examine. The new study provides a rare ancient example of potential subduction 'infection.' Its authors say they've discovered evidence that neighboring collisions triggered East Asia's 'Ring of Fire,' a colossal subduction system currently fueling earthquakes and volcanoes from Alaska to the southern Indian Ocean. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Nearly 300 million years ago China was a scattering of islands separated by the ancient Tethys and Asian oceans. Established subduction zones consumed these oceans, welding the landmasses into a new continent and raising mountains from Turkey to China. By 260 million years ago this subduction seems to have spread and begun pulling down the neighboring Pacific plate. 'The dying act of those closing oceans may have been to infect the Pacific plate and start it subducting westward under the Asian continent,' says study lead author Mark Allen, a geologist at Durham University in England. 'In one form or another, it's been diving down ever since.' The smoking gun in this case is the 'Dupal anomaly,' identified by a geochemical fingerprint from the ancient Tethys Ocean and what is now the Indian Ocean. When the study authors unexpectedly found this signature in volcanic rocks from the western Pacific, they surmised that material from the Tethys had spread eastward across a plate boundary from one subduction zone to another—triggering the neighboring plate's descent. 'It's like seeing someone's fingerprint at a crime scene,' Allen says. But the mechanism of spread remains mysterious. The researchers suspect that transform faults—boundaries where plates slide past one another, like the San Andreas Fault—may act as weak spots where slight changes in collision angle or speed can destabilize dense oceanic crust, causing it to sink. Duarte compares the scenario to aluminum foil in water. 'The foil floats,' he says, 'but the slightest tap will cause it to sink.' If subduction spreads this way, could the Atlantic Ocean's relatively quiet plate margins be next? The massive 1755 Lisbon earthquake hints at early subduction invasion there. Duarte suggests parts of Iberia and the Caribbean are undergoing this process's initial stages: 'In another 100 million years a new Atlantic 'Ring of Fire' may form—just as it once did in the Pacific.'
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a Tiny Brain Region Guides Generosity
Imagine it's Saturday morning. You're sipping coffee when your best friend texts, 'Any chance you could help me move today?' You sigh—there go your weekend plans—but reply, 'Of course.' That afternoon you sweat as you carry boxes up a flight of stairs. A week later a co-worker you barely know mentions she's moving and could really use a hand. This time, you hesitate. You are not as quick to offer help even though the request is nearly identical. Why does generosity come so naturally for those we are close to but feels more like a burden when the recipient is a stranger or mere acquaintance? Psychologists call this tendency social discounting: we are generally more willing to make sacrifices for people to whom we feel emotionally close, and our generosity declines as the social-emotional distance to the recipient of help increases. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] But what happens in the brain when we make these decisions? And why are some people more generous to socially distant individuals than others are? In recent research, my colleagues and I gained new insight into these questions by examining a rare population of people with selective damage to a part of the brain called the basolateral amygdala. Our findings suggest that this small but important structure may be essential for calibrating our generosity based on how close or distant others feel to us. The amygdala, a small almond-shaped region that is nestled deep in the brain's temporal lobe, is traditionally known for its role in processing emotions, particularly fear. But over the past few decades it has become clear that the amygdala, particularly its basolateral part, is a central hub in our social brain. Across species, this region has been shown to play a role in evaluating social rewards, empathic responses and decisions involving others. In rodents and monkeys, neurons in the basolateral amygdala encode not just the value of rewards for oneself but also the rewards received by others. And in humans the structure has been linked to traits such as trust, empathy, moral decision-making and extraordinary altruism. Human amygdala volume also correlates with the size and complexity of an individual's social network. And finally, some evidence suggests that psychopathy and aggression are associated with a smaller, less functional amygdala. But how, exactly, does the basolateral amygdala influence our decisions to help others? One hypothesis is that this brain area allows us to balance competing helpful, social motives with self-interested goals. When you decide whether to help your best friend move, you are likely focused more on their benefit (making the move easier) than on your own cost in time and effort. But when the person is a stranger, that mental calculation may shift. Some neuroscientists propose that the basolateral amygdala aids us as we navigate this trade-off by assigning value not just to our own well-being but also to the well-being of others. To test this idea, my colleagues and I turned to a remarkable group of people in South Africa who have Urbach-Wiethe disease, a very rare genetic condition that causes selective bilateral damage to the basolateral amygdala while leaving the rest of the brain intact. In our study, we invited five women with this disease and 16 women without the condition to take part in a 'social discounting' task. Each participant first listed eight people from her own social network, ranging from her emotionally closest person (ranked social distance '1') to someone she barely knew ('50') or a complete stranger ('100'). We then asked our participants to make decisions on how to split money. In each of several rounds, they received a fixed monetary amount and decided how much to share with each of their eight listed contacts. This task thus measured our participants' willingness to share resources based on how emotionally close or distant they felt to each person they had indicated in their social network. As expected, the participants gave more to people they were close to than they gave to more distant others. That is, generosity declined as social distance increased. Interestingly, however, participants with damage to the basolateral amygdala were less generous overall than others, and their generosity decreased more sharply as social distance increased. They showed what we call steeper social discounting: they were still willing to help those they were emotionally closest to, but their willingness to give dropped off markedly for more distant individuals. One participant with basolateral amygdala damage was an exception: she was ungenerous across the board, even toward her closest friend. But overall, the pattern was clear: damage to the basolateral amygdala did not eliminate altruism, but it distorted the fine-tuned calibration of generosity based on social distance. Importantly, variations in personality, empathy or social network size did not explain the differences in generosity among our participants. Rather our participants with Urbach-Wiethe disease seemed unable to adjust their generosity flexibly to the social context. At first glance our findings might seem to contradict earlier studies that found that people with Urbach-Wiethe disease are actually more generous than others. For example, in past research, people with this condition gave away more money in the trust game. This is a classic experiment in behavioral economics in which participants decide how much money to send to another player, the trustee. The amount sent is typically multiplied, and the trustee then decides how much to return. The initial amount sent is often seen as a measure of trust in the trustee. People with basolateral amygdala damage tend to send much more than others, even to untrustworthy trustees who fail to reciprocate. Researchers have described this unusual pattern of trust as a form of 'pathological altruism.' In a similar vein, another study had people with Urbach-Wiethe disease respond to moral dilemmas involving hypothetical life-or-death decisions about others. They consistently refused to sacrifice one person to save many, revealing a marked reluctance to be responsible for causing harm to another individual in comparison with participants without the disease. How, then, can we reconcile these earlier findings with our own results? We argue that the basolateral amygdala does not simply promote or hinder prosociality but is part of a neural network that helps people create a model of how the social world works that can be used to guide decision-making. With an intact basolateral amygdala, a person considers social context, social structure, social norms and learned expectations in social interactions when deciding whether to be generous or selfish. When that system breaks down—as when someone suffers amygdala lesions—people may struggle to balance generous and selfish motives and consequently rely on simpler, default strategies that do not depend on networks that include this brain structure. In the trust game, the default assumption might be that others are trustworthy. In moral dilemmas, it could be to follow a rigid rule like 'never harm anyone.' Such ideas may have formed in childhood and, given damage to the basolateral amygdala, not been revised later in life, even in the face of contrary experiences, as with untrustworthy individuals. In our task, the default strategy is to maximize one's own payoff—unless the recipient is emotionally very close, in which case helping them comes automatically. Although our study includes only a small number of participants (which is unavoidable, given the extreme rarity of the condition), the distinctive pattern of brain damage in this group—symmetrical and precisely located in both hemispheres—is quite unique in neuroscience research. Other studies involving selective brain lesions often rely on only one or two patients. We also feel confident in our conclusions, given how our work fits into a pattern of evidence drawing from more studies and participants that suggest amygdala functionality is crucial to support our social life. The idea that the basolateral amygdala helps us weigh selfish and altruistic motives might sound abstract—but it plays out in real life all the time. Think back to the moving-day dilemma. The generous impulse to help your friend move likely comes automatically because it is rooted in deeply encoded values and social bonds. But deciding whether to help an acquaintance requires something more: flexible, model-based decision-making that weighs social norms, reputational concerns and empathy against effort costs, self-care and the simple desire to spend a pleasurable, lazy weekend. It's precisely in these gray areas where the basolateral amygdala seems to do its most important work. Generosity is therefore not an all-or-nothing trait; it is a model-based social behavior, shaped by whom we are interacting with and how close we feel to them. And deep in the brain, the basolateral amygdala is helping us do that calculus. Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about for Mind Matters? Please send suggestions to Scientific American's Mind Matters editor Daisy Yuhas dyuhas@
