There are earthquakes, and then there is the ground shaking that results from earthquakes.
The magnitude scale that is most used is an expression of the total energy release in the earthquake is called the 'moment magnitude' or 'work magnitude' because it's measured in those units (Newton meters or dyne-cm). It is calibrated to be similar to the original Richter scale, which was an empirical, I believe unitless, scale based directly on seismometer readings. If someone credible says that an earthquake is a 3 or a 7 or something, they are almost certainly referring to the moment magnitude. The 1989 Loma Prieta event was a M 6.9 event, Northridge was M 6.6 or 6.7.
There is another measure called the 'intensity' that you may be referring to with the 'apparent magnitude' reference. This is a non-quantitative, basically ranked categorical description of the amount of ground shaking and subsequent damage that occurred. The most common intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli intensity scale; it is usually (and correctly) denoted in Roman numerals. The Wikipedia page for the Mercalli scale [1] is good, however I prefer [2]. The intensity has a sort of tree-falling-in-the-woods element to it: the categories are based on how people and the built environment respond to the earthquake, so did earthquakes in the 4.6 billion years before humanity have intensities? They had magnitudes.
Quantitatively, ground shaking is measured as 'peak ground acceleration', a force, usually compared to gravity 'g' (i.e., 9.81 m/s^2), as 'peak ground velocity' which is a velocity (m/s), or as 'peak ground displacement' which is a distance.
The intensity of an earthquake will be related to the peak ground acceleration and velocity, as well as the duration of the shaking. These are functions of both the earthquake properties (magnitude, faulting style, depth) as well as the properties of the ground in the region of the earthquake, and the distance from the earthquake (as the amplitude of the waves decreases with distance). Solid rock does not shake nearly as much as loose or wet sediment, for example, and some geologic basins that are deep pockets of sediment surrounded by bedrock can amplify earthquake waves and make the shaking locally much worse than it was elsewhere, even closer to the earthquake. This was a big deal in Loma Prieta, for example--the damage in Oakland, built on water-saturated sediment, was worse than in some of San Jose, or in my (current) house in the Santa Cruz mountains just a few km away (I was safely dodging tornadoes in Tulsa at the time).
There's also a noticeable difference in waves. Some quakes hit you with a lateral motion (which, I presume magnifies any possible liquefaction). Some hit with a rolling motion (which really wreaks havoc on masonry). And some hit you with both (those are the ones where you hope the building doesn't collapse on you).
The magnitude scale that is most used is an expression of the total energy release in the earthquake is called the 'moment magnitude' or 'work magnitude' because it's measured in those units (Newton meters or dyne-cm). It is calibrated to be similar to the original Richter scale, which was an empirical, I believe unitless, scale based directly on seismometer readings. If someone credible says that an earthquake is a 3 or a 7 or something, they are almost certainly referring to the moment magnitude. The 1989 Loma Prieta event was a M 6.9 event, Northridge was M 6.6 or 6.7.
There is another measure called the 'intensity' that you may be referring to with the 'apparent magnitude' reference. This is a non-quantitative, basically ranked categorical description of the amount of ground shaking and subsequent damage that occurred. The most common intensity scale is the Modified Mercalli intensity scale; it is usually (and correctly) denoted in Roman numerals. The Wikipedia page for the Mercalli scale [1] is good, however I prefer [2]. The intensity has a sort of tree-falling-in-the-woods element to it: the categories are based on how people and the built environment respond to the earthquake, so did earthquakes in the 4.6 billion years before humanity have intensities? They had magnitudes.
Quantitatively, ground shaking is measured as 'peak ground acceleration', a force, usually compared to gravity 'g' (i.e., 9.81 m/s^2), as 'peak ground velocity' which is a velocity (m/s), or as 'peak ground displacement' which is a distance.
The intensity of an earthquake will be related to the peak ground acceleration and velocity, as well as the duration of the shaking. These are functions of both the earthquake properties (magnitude, faulting style, depth) as well as the properties of the ground in the region of the earthquake, and the distance from the earthquake (as the amplitude of the waves decreases with distance). Solid rock does not shake nearly as much as loose or wet sediment, for example, and some geologic basins that are deep pockets of sediment surrounded by bedrock can amplify earthquake waves and make the shaking locally much worse than it was elsewhere, even closer to the earthquake. This was a big deal in Loma Prieta, for example--the damage in Oakland, built on water-saturated sediment, was worse than in some of San Jose, or in my (current) house in the Santa Cruz mountains just a few km away (I was safely dodging tornadoes in Tulsa at the time).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Mercalli_intensity_sc... [2]: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/levels-of-the-mercalli-s...