When
Geoscientists first imaged the earth’s interior, they probably thought what any
parent first thinks when looking at a sonogram: “what the hell is that?”.
Seismic Tomography is perhaps the oldest method of trying to image the interior of a
large object we could not easily get a camera inside.
Just
like looking inside a pregnant woman with acoustical waves (sonography),
seismologist use earth vibrations to image what is going on deep down in the
planet. They have used earthquakes, nuclear explosions, and even vibrations
related to the ocean, to look at the rattles and shakes of the earth and
produce 3D images of what they think the structure is way down below. In a nutshell, that is what Seismic Tomography does.
Unfortunately
though, the seismologists who make these images cannot refine their craft as
the medical industry has done: they have never put the earth on an operating
table and actually looked inside to see if they are using their tool correctly.
They have been able to do it in shallow depths, the upper crust, the earth’s
most outer layer of “skin”, but getting any deeper is still a very difficult
technological feet. So, they have to make assumptions, argue how the computer
should display the signals coming from their instruments, and add some “artistry”
to how the image is displayed. With all
these variables floating around that can drastically affect the picture they
produce, it is a really good thing they at least do not have to worry about malpractice
insurance.
![]() |
| Sonogram of Child in Utero |
![]() |
| Tomographic Cross Section of Velocity "Anomalies" of the earth |


This is quite a change from before, but very compelling! I really like your sonogram analogy, and you infer there are problems with looking deep underground without getting technical at all. With this as a start, you can now start exploring the scientific studio space.
ReplyDelete