[roses of sharon]

Dumb question alert!

Can an earthquake's aftershocks be stronger than the original earthquake?

(I have always wanted to ask this question on an earthquake thread)

Thanks!

[oldleft]

Actually, yes. However, when that happens the first quake is then considered a "pre-shock" and the largest is the main quake.

[DocRock]

They didn't have recording instruments, but the New Madrid fault had three very strong earthquakes from the end of 1811 through the spring of 1812. First link I could did up...

[BagCamAddict]

The answer is yes... but then they would later revise their nomenclature and say the first earthquake was a "foreshock" (just like they have "aftershocks") to the larger quake.

Something this large (7.8 - 8.1) releases alot of energy though, so it's highly unlikely that a larger quake would follow something this large. But if you had a 3.4 magnitude quake, for example, then it wouldn't be "shocking" (har har) to have it followed by a 6.5.... and then a 4.6... and then a 2.4... They would call the first one a foreshock, the 6.2 would be called (by the media, and in layman's terms) the "earthquake", and the later ones would be called aftershocks.

Technically, they are ALL "earthquakes." But for some silly reason, people seem to be mentally soothed when you call it an aftershock rather than "another earthquake."