A leading expert in engineering seismology and seismic hazard assessment explains why the idea that a shift in the Earth’s core rotation could trigger the devastating earthquake in Turkey and Syria does not hold up under scientific scrutiny. The claim, raised by some observers, suggested a causal link between a very slight change in the planet’s inner dynamics and major surface seismic events. In the view of Ruben Tatevosyan, deputy director of engineering seismology and seismic hazard assessment at IPE RAS, such a connection is not supported by current evidence. The core rotates at a different rate than the surrounding mantle, but the magnitude of any slowdown is minuscule and insufficient to influence tectonic activity in a meaningful way. As he notes, the timing of slowdowns since the 1970s does not align with the occurrence of large earthquakes, including those in Chile or Alaska, which happened well before or after any proposed shifts in core rotation. In his assessment, drawing broad, dramatic conclusions from a small and poorly understood change in the Earth’s deep interior risks misleading the public and science alike. The more historical data experts have about earthquakes, the less plausible such sweeping hypotheses become, a point he emphasizes to urge caution and discipline in interpreting seismic signals.
When scientists examine the sequence of events leading up to a major quake, they look for patterns that can be observed on the crust, faults, and shake maps. The evidence points to a well-defined tectonic boundary where stress accumulates along fault lines, setting the stage for rupture when the rocks fail. In this case, the seismic activity clearly corresponds to a known fault system rather than a cosmically driven anomaly. The Earth’s rotation and its minor fluctuations are fascinating topics, but they do not manifest as sudden, large-scale changes that can cause earthquakes in specific regions. In the professional opinion of seismologists, attributing a regional earthquake to core dynamics ignores the established mechanics of plate tectonics and fault interactions that govern where and when quakes occur.
According to Tatevosyan, the event sits on a segment of an active fault where historical records and modern monitoring converge to confirm ongoing tectonic motion. He characterizes this region as inherently energetic, a persistent hotspot of seismic activity that regularly experiences aftershocks as the crust relaxes after initial rupture. The assertion that the earthquake rate in the East Anatolian fault system could be read as a sign of cosmic-scale influence runs counter to the accumulated observational data. Instead, the fault’s geometry, stress state, and historical behavior are the more reliable predictors of future activity, including aftershock sequences that gradually subside over time. The scientist stresses the importance of relying on a robust history of events and a careful interpretation of seismic data to avoid overreaching conclusions that could misinform public understanding or policy responses. In short, this is a fault-driven process, with aftershocks and continuing activity likely to persist, but without the dramatic role attributed to deep Earth rotation.