Even the model supporters are uncomfortable claiming that it explains every volcanic anomaly,and like any popular theory, I suppose, it has some determined critics.These critics have put forth a number of alternative theories, all unproven so far.But one well-regarded theory is the Crack Hypothesis,which assumes that hot spots are created when a piece of the crust gets stretched thinner and thinner and the resulting stress causes small cracksto open up at weak spots in the crust,and it’s through these cracks that magma pushes up to form volcanoes.Proponents of the crack hypothesis consider this a widespread phenomenon and believe that magma’s not coming up from deep within the Earth’s interior,but rather from just beneath the surface crust.This hypothesis is attractive, becauseit fits with what we already know about plate tectonics and it fits what we know about some secondary smaller hot spots, buthow well does it explain the Hawaiian Islands?Could a series of random cracks produce that same particular string of Islands that’s sequenced so neatly from old to young?You know, it worries me when a theory depends on coincidence to produce results.
