“Earthquakes are indeed very poorly understood. ...... This textbook picture still poses many fundamental paradoxes, ...... There is no unifying understanding of these paradoxes.”

“对地震确实仅有很差的理解。……这种课本式的描述仍然造成许多基本的似是而非的说法，对这些似是而非的说法没有一种统一的理解。”

Didier Sornette recalled parts of the historical development of the seismology as follows:

Didier Sornette回顾了地震学的一部分历史发展性如下14∶ 

“Earthquakes are indeed very poorly understood. The standard theory is based on the rebound theory of earthquakes formulated by Reid in 1910 which was later elaborated as a friction phenomenon by Brace and Byerlee in 1966 with many recent developments using Ruina-Dieterich-type laws. This textbook picture still poses many fundamental paradoxes, such as the strain paradox1, the stress paradox2 , the heat flow paradox3 and so on4 . Resolutions of these paradoxes usually call for additional assumptions on the nature of the rupture process (such as novel modes of deformations and ruptures) prior to and/or during an earthquake, on the nature of the fault and on the effect of trapped fluids within the crust at seismogenic depths (see ref. 417 and references therein). There is no unifying understanding of these paradoxes.” 

“对地震确实仅有很差的理解。地震学的标准理论是这样建立∶Reid于1910年建立了地震的回弹理论，Brace和Byerlee而后在1966年将其作为一种摩擦现象予以详细阐述，同时考虑了利用Ruina-Dieterich类型规律的许多近期发展。这种课本式的描述仍然造成许多基本的似是而非的说法，如关于应变的说法；关于应力的说法15；关于热流的说法16；等等17。对这些似是而非说明的解决方案，往往又引进地震前和／或地震过程中关于破裂过程性质的许多进一步的假说〔如变形和破裂的异常状态〕，关于断裂层的性质，以及地震活动深度地壳内部被困住的流体的影响〔参看参考文献17〕。对这些似是而非的说法没有一种统一的理解。”

“We do not yet have a definitive theory of the seismic source”

“我们至今没有对地震成因的一个确定的理论”

Robert J. Geller pointed out11:

Robert J. Geller 指出11∶ 

“Why is prediction so difficult? This question cannot be answered conclusively, as we do not yet have a definitive theory of the seismic source. ” 

“为什么地震预测那么困难？对这个问题不能做出最后的答复，因为我们至今没有对地震成因的一个确定的理论。”

Robert J. Geller also had to admit25:

Robert J. Geller 也不得不承认25∶ 

“All of the debaters, including both Wyss and myself, agree that scientifically sound efforts to improve our knowledge of the earthquake source process should be made.” 

“所有的辩论者，包括Wyss以及我本人，都同意应当做出科学上有效彻底的努力改进我们对于地震源过程的知识。”

David D. Jackson also pointed out13:

David D. Jackson也指出13∶ 

“Part of our difficulty is a lack of rigour in Earth science.” 

“我们的部分困难来自于地球科学中缺乏的严格性。

Leon Knopoff pointed out53:

Leion Knopoff指出53∶ 

“It is now time to develop a sound physics-based theory of the precursory process that takes us away from simplistic models.” 

“现在已经到时间对前兆过程发展一个将我们从简单模型引开的合理的物理学为基础的理论。” 

“We have been guilty of jumping on bandwagons without asking the basic questions, "What is an earthquake? What determines its size, and why is it likely to occur where and when it does?" These are physics questions; they are not likely to be solved by statistically unsubstantiable means. We have so far been unsuccessful at prediction because laboratory and theoretical studies of the physics of deformation and fracture have been largely unsupported. The problem is not simple; however, that does not mean it is insoluble.” 

“我们自己对于问清基本的问题前就跳上乐队花车有责任∶‘什么是地震？是什么决定其大小，以及为什么它看来在哪里和什么时候发生？’这些都是一些物理学方面的问题；它们不象能够由统计学的非实质性手段来解决。我们在预测方面到目前为止不成功，因为未能获得变形和破裂的物理状况的实验室研究的和理论研究的支撑。问题并不简单；然而，那并不意味着它是不能解决的。”

“In the USA, the emphasis has long been shifted to a better fundamental understanding of the earthquake process, and on an improved calculation of the seismic hazard”

“在美国，研究工作的重点早就转移到对地震过程更好的基础理解上，以及对地震风险计算的改进上。”

In the opening Introduction, Ian Main stated:

在辩论的“引言”中，Ian Main宣称∶ 

“In the USA, the emphasis has long been shifted to a better fundamental understanding of the earthquake process, and on an improved calculation of the seismic hazard, apart from an unsuccessful attempt to monitor precursors to an earthquake near Parkfield, California, which failed to materialize on time.” 

“在美国，研究工作的重点早就转移到对地震过程更好的基础理解上，以及对地震风险计算的改进上。一项例外是不成功的尝试对加利福尼亚Parkfield附近的地震的前兆进行监视，该地震结果没有按预测的时间发震。” 

“In Japan, particularly in the aftermath of the Kobe earthquake in 1995, there is a growing realization that successful earthquake prediction might not be realistic13 .” 

“在日本，作为1995年神户地震后果之一，正在加强一种理解，认为进行成功的地震预测大概并不实际18。” 

“In China, thirty false alarms have brought power lines and business operations to a standstill in the past three years, leading to recent government plans to clamp down on unofficial ‘predictions’14 .” 

“在中国，过去三年期间，三十次误报造成电力线和业务停止，导致政府最近计划对禁止非官方的‘预测’采取措施19。” 

“So, if we cannot predict invididual earthquakes reliably and accurately with current knowledge15-20 8, how far should we go in investigating the degree of preditablity that might exist?” 

“因此，如果我们不能以现有的知识20 21 22 23 24 8对各个地震进行可靠和准确的预测，我们在研究可能存在的地震可预测性程度方面还要走多远？”

Regarding historical and present research on earthquake prediction in Japan and US, Robert J. Geller stated as follows :

关于地震预测在日本和美国的历史情况和目前研究情况，Robert J. Geller介绍如下25∶ 

“In 1891 the Nobi (sometimes called Mino-Owari) earthquake caused significant damage in Japan. In response, the Japanese government established the Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee in 1892. Imamura (Ref. 1 , p. 346), a well-known seismologist, wrote as follows in 1937: "[The Committee] attacked with every resource at their command the various problems bearing on earthquake prediction, such as earth tiltings and earth pulsations, variation in the elements of terrestrial magnetism, variation in underground temperatures, variation in latitude, secular variation in topography, etc., but satisfactory results were not obtained". 

“1891年，Nobi地震〔有时亦称为Mino-Owari地震〕在日本造成了极大的破坏。对此做出反应，日本政府于1892年建立了‘皇家地震调查委员会’。Imamura〔参考文献26第346页〕，著名的地震学家，1937年写道∶‘［委员会］利用他们能够调动的一切资源对地震预测有关的所有问题进行研究，包括地倾斜、地跳、地磁因素的变化、地下温度的变化、纬度的变化、地形学方面长期，等，但是未能获得令人满意的结果。” 

“J. B. Macelwane2 , also a leading seismologist of his day (one of the major medals of the American Geophysical Union is named in his honour), commented as follows in 1946. "The problem of earthquake forecasting has been under intensive investigation in California and elsewhere for some forty years, and we seem to be no nearer a solution of the problem than we were in the beginning. In fact the outlook is much less hopeful." 

“J. B. Macelwane27，也是他那个时代领先的地震学家〔美国地球物理联合会的一项奖章以他的名字命名〕，1946年发表以下看法。“在加利福尼亚和其它地方对地震预测问题进行了约四十年深入的调查，而我们看来并不比开始时更接近于该问题的答案。事实上，前景看来更加没有希望。” 

“Thus the existence of prediction research efforts before 1960 is supported by two leading authorities of the era. One stated that a government body had attacked the prediction problem "with every resource at their command" without obtaining satisfactory results, and another that "intensive investigations" "in California and elsewhere for some forty years" had not led to any progress towards prediction. 

“因而，1960年前地震预测方面的努力受到当时年代领先权威支持。其中一位声称政府的一个机构以‘他们能够调动的全部资源’对地震预测问题做了努力，但是未能获得令人满意的结果；另一位‘在加利福尼亚和其它地方对地震预测问题进行了约四十年深入的调查’，但也未能朝地震预测方向实现任何进展。” 

“Japan's prediction research program started in 1965, and the Soviet prediction research program started in the Garm "polygon" (test field area for intensive geophysical observations) shortly after the 1948 Ashkhabad earthquake4 . These substantial efforts by qualified professionals should not be ignored just because they were not in the US or western Europe. 

“日本的预测研究计划始于1965年，苏联的预测研究计划于1948年Ashkhabad地震后不久始于Gram“polygon”〔从事大量地球物理观察的试验场〕28。不应仅因为不在美国或西欧就忽视这些称职专业人员做出的重大努力。” 

“Japan has spent about 2 x 1011 Yen on earthquake prediction since 1965 (Asahi Shinbun newspaper, 10 January 1998), but this programme has been unsuccessful58,6 .” 

“1965年以来，日本在地震预测方面已经花费的经费约2 x 1011 日元〔参见Asahi Shibun报，1998年1月10日〕，但是该项目计划也是不成功的8 29。”

“...... reputable and qualified scientists in this field are boycotted a priori. Is this the right way to conduct science?”

“……正是该领域中有信誉的称职的科学家在阻止一种经验。这是否是从事科学的正式方式？”

Regarding to the general situation in Europe, Francesco Biagi also confirmed :

关于在欧洲总的情况，Francesco Biagi也确认30∶ 

“In this framework, countries in which research on precursors is still encouraged and funded are very few. Generally this research is prevented so that in Europe any reference to earthquake precursors in a scientific proposal will guarantee that it will not be funded. Therefore, reputable and qualified scientists in this field are boycotted a priori. Is this the right way to conduct science?” 

“在这样的框架下，在继续鼓励对地震前兆进行研究的国家经费很少。总的来讲阻止进行这样的研究，因此在欧洲，在科学项目建议书中只要提到地震前兆，可以保证这样的建议书肯定得不到经费。因此，正是该领域中有信誉的称职的科学家在阻止一种经验。这是否是从事科学的正式方式？”

“It is clear that in the US there was never a serious research program for earthquake prediction.”

“显然，在美国从来没有过任何对地震预测从事认真研究的项目计划。

Regarding the situation in the world, US and Europe, Max Wyss pointed out ”

关于在世界、美国和欧洲的情况，Max Wyss指出31∶ 

“The facts are that the first blue print on prediction research was not assembled until the mid 1960's and that blue print was not followed. No prediction research program existed before the 1970s and after the short flurry of activity in the mid 1970s, funding in the US and Europe dried up. Those of us who work in the field of earthquake rupture or prediction, know from first hand experience that when seeking research funding, the expression "earthquake prediction" in a research proposal to the NSF or the USGS will guarantee that it will not be funded.” 

“事实是，关于地震预测研究的头一个兰本直到六十年代中期尚未准备好，而且这个兰本根本没有执行。七十年代之前不存在任何地震预测的项目计划，七十年代中期短期部分活动之后，美国和欧洲用于该方面的经费就枯竭了。我们曾在地震破裂或预测领域中工作过的人，从亲身经验知道，在寻求研究支持经费时，若提交给NSF〔国家科学基金会〕或USGS〔美国地质服务〕的建议书中提到“地震预测”的表述的话，可以担保获得不了支持经费。”

In a later paper, Max Wyss further pointed out :

在后边一篇文章中，Max Wyss进一步指出32∶ 

“The most basic tool of seismologists is the seismograph network. Rudimentary networks first came into existence in a few locations in the 1930s. A world wide network was installed in the mid 1960s, and anyone who wishes to analyze high resolution earthquake catalogues produced by dense networks cannot start their data set before the 1980s, because up to that time the data were so poor. Thus the researchers around 1940, whom Geller quotes, had hardly an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the distribution of earthquakes in space, time and as a function of size. They were in no position to conduct serious prediction research. They did not have even the most basic, let alone sophisticated tools.” 

“地震学家最基本的工具是地震仪网。三十年代，少数几个地方开始建立另星的地震仪网。六十年代中期才建立世界范围的地震仪网。但是，任何想分析密集地震仪网产生的高分辨度地震目录的人，都不能在八十年代前开始他们数据组，因此有关的数据在此之前仍然太差。因而，Geller所引证的四十年代期间的研究者，那时甚至没有机会接触到地震依方位、时间和规模哪怕是初步的分布。他们根本不处于进行认真地震预测研究的地位。他们连最基本的工具都没有，更不用说更复杂的工具。” 

“In addition, the reason for fault ruptures (earthquakes) on this planet was only discovered in the late 1960s. Only then did it became clear that the planet cools by moving heat, generated in its interior due to radioactive decay, by convection to the surface, where brittle plates are pushed past one another, generating earthquakes. Preoccupied with consolidating this discovery for about a decade, seismologists spent no time on prediction research and plans drawn up for such a program remained largely unimplemented (see A. Michael in this debate ).” 

“此外，地球上断裂层破裂〔地震〕的原因仅到六十年代后期才发现。只有那时，才清楚星球通过热量的传递，即放射性衰减在星球内部产生的热量，通过对流传递到星球表面，此处较脆的板块从另一个板块边上推过，造成地震。地震学家花了大约十年全神贯注于巩固这种发现，没有时间从事地震预测方面的研究。对地震预测研究起草的有关计划则基本上没有实施〔参看A. Michael这次争论中的论述〕”。 

“It is clear that in the US there was never a serious research program for earthquake prediction. There did exist a thorough seismology program to detect and discriminate nuclear explosions in the USSR and China, which was very successful, because it attracted the best workers in the field, since it was well funded.” 

“显然，在美国从来没有过任何对地震预测从事认真研究的项目计划。确实有过一个探测识别苏联和中国从事核爆炸的充分的地震研究项目，实施的非常成功，因为有充分的经费支持，它能够吸引到该领域中最好的学者参加。”

接续后篇∶

——>3.Why is earthquake prediction so difficult?

为什么地震预测那么困难？