Electromagnetic theory makes no prediction that anything like it need exist. It does predict all known forms of electrical discharge.
Lightning is not completely understood. And it would be a bold (and incorrect) claim to say that all possible interactions between electrical discharges and the atmosphere, or denser matter, are well understood.
External Quote:
Despite being one of the most familiar and widely recognized natural phenomena, lightning remains relatively poorly understood. Even the most basic questions of how lightning is initiated inside thunderclouds and how it then propagates for many tens of kilometers have only begun to be addressed.
External Quote:
The study of lightning and related phenomena involves the synthesis of many branches of physics, from
atmospheric physics to
plasma physics to
quantum electrodynamics, and provides a plethora of challenging unsolved problems.
Quotes from "The physics of lightning", Dwyer, J.R. and Uman, M.A., 2014,
Physics Reports Volume 534, Issue 4;
abstract and (informative) introduction here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037015731300375X
The authors list their top ten questions in current lightning research;
External Quote:
10. What is the physics of ball lightning? Is there more than one type of ball lightning?
In "Photonuclear reactions triggered by lightning discharge", Enoto, T., Wada, Y. et al., 2017,
Nature vol. 551, pages 481–484,
it is stated that lightning produces gamma rays that are sufficiently energetic to cause atmospheric photonuclear reactions.
The researchers found evidence for the production of positrons from the emission signatures of electron-positron annihilation
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24630/
-I'm mentioning this as an example of a study describing the perhaps more "exotic" properties of lightning, demonstrating that active research into the physics of lightning continues. I'm not aware of any connection with claims of ball lightning.
The atmospheric phenomenon known as
sprites may have been described in the late 19th century (and must have been observed many times throughout history). A NASA* U2 pilot gave an account that is almost certainly of a sprite in 1973, over the Gulf of Tonkin ("Upward Electrical Discharges From Thunderstorm Tops", Lyons, W, Nelson, T. et al. 2003,
link here- PDF downloadable, also PDF attached below. The pilot's story is on pg. 3 of the PDF).
However, only the accidental capture of a sprite on a low-light video camera in 1989 by Franz, Nemzek and Winckler of the University of Minnesota
confirmed their existence;
abstract of "Television image of a large upward electrical discharge above a thunderstorm system",
Science 249 (4964) here
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17787625/
The term "sprite" was coined in 1993.
Here's a sprite photographed from an aircraft
Since 1989, sprites have been photographed from the ground, air and space (including from the ISS).
Although believed to be a cold plasma phenomenon,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning), in their "Astronomy Picture of the Day" for 4th January 2021 a NASA astronomer writes
External Quote:
...apart from a general association with positive cloud-to-ground lightning, their root cause remains unknown.
Link, including video
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210104.html
External Quote:
Optical imaging using a 10,000 frame-per-second
high speed camera showed that sprites are actually clusters of small, decameter scale, (10–100 m or 33–328 ft)
balls of ionization that are launched at an altitude of about 80 km (50 mi) and then move downward at speeds of up to ten percent the
speed of light, followed a few milliseconds later by a separate set of upward moving balls of ionization.
Wikipedia, ibid., my emphasis. Although the balls (more properly, streamer heads) are larger than descriptions of ball lightning, this dramatic phenomenon
exists, is not massively rare- yet has only been known of since 1989.
I don't know if "ball lightning" exists or not, and I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other.
But I think it's clear that unexpected, dramatic physical phenomena associated with thunderstorms have been confirmed in recent years, and that, retrospectively, some of them (e.g. sprites, as
probably seen by U2 pilot Ronald Williams in 1973) had been observed several times before being accepted as objectively true.
Arguably the 10th July 2011 ball lightning report by staff in the emergency services control room in Liberec, Czech Republic, is more reliable than Williams' sprite sighting: Although less highly-trained than Williams, there were several of them, all presumably trustworthy and sober. Unlike Williams they weren't dealing with the physiological and psychological stresses of high-altitude flight through potentially hostile airspace in a notoriously "difficult" aircraft. Williams, flying over a storm- with flashes of lightning- would have viewed the outside world through the visor of his pressure suit and the aircraft canopy.
But we accept William's account, because
16 years later a likely cause (a sprite) was incontrovertibly observed.
The many popularly published and repeated "scientific explanations" are wholly speculative
Same with dark matter, dark energy. Both are invoked in attempts to explain observational findings; if they exist, their nature is undetermined (although obviously a matter of much speculation).
Many scientific theories start in the realm of speculation, evolving into testable hypotheses.
It has no known properties, same as ghosts.
In most accounts it appears to coincide with thunderstorms (or at least lightning strikes).
Provisionally I guess we have to regard the witness descriptions as
possibly reflecting observable properties of something.
Even if ball lightning is real, it's possible that some (or indeed many) claimed sightings are misperceptions or misidentifications of unrelated cause, or outright hoaxes. This may muddy the waters, making "reliable" claims (if any) difficult to identify.
Physical traces (i.e. damage) are described by some claimants; I don't know how rigorously they've been investigated.
Ghosts are hard to reproduce in the lab, and unsupported by physical theory
Unlike ball lightning, ghosts (like UFOs) are freighted with shedloads of folkloric and pop culture connotations.
We're
all familiar with ghosts, but, as Mendel states, there are no testable theories which might lead us to believe that they're real.
There isn't a genre of "ball lightning stories", I don't think it's something that many people have preconceptions of.
Ghosts are more likely to be reported by those who have a prior belief in ghosts; claims of ball lightning are rare- I suspect (but cannot prove) that some claimed witnesses were previously unaware of the phenomenon they describe.
Unlike ghosts or UFOs or Nessie, there isn't much social cachet in being a ball lightning witness (except on YouTube?)
When a group of friends sit down together of an evening, no-one pipes up with "Do you believe in ball lightning?"
(except on Metabunk!)
The examples of sprites and lightning-related photonuclear reactions are maybe persuasive that lightning is a more complex thing than many of us had imagined. Although they might have no direct connection with ball lightning, I think these relatively recent, unexpected discoveries leave sufficient "wriggle room" for additional lightning-related phenomena to be described,
perhaps including ball lightning.
It would make a useful explanation for some of the
claims of ball lightning!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Officially. I would be surprised if NASA directed U2 flights over the Gulf of Tonkin in 1973. Other US agencies might have done.