I've seen many videos claiming to capture the elusive phenomenon of ball lightning. But I must say I have yet to see a single one that I genuinely believe captures the claimed phenomenon. So....a thread for all those cases that are disputable. Starting with this one...which I am fairly confident is actually just a white bird and slow flashing of the 'orb' is simply it flapping its wings....
Here's another I don't think is genuine. This looks to me far more like a blown transformer ( you can even see the smoke from it afterwards, at 0.04 and 0.05 ) and the overcharge travelling along the raised wire on the pylon. The lightning never actually hits the pylon. I also suspect this film has been cropped and the 'lower' orb is simply lens flare.
That information primarily comes from eyewitness accounts; ball lightning is rare enough that no scientists have ever observed it in the field while they had equipment to measure its properties. At least not until the summer of 2012, when the authors of the new paper were out on the Qinghai Plateau in China during a thunderstorm, taking spectral readings of ordinary cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning.
Just a few minutes before midnight, the researchers' digital video cameras picked up a ball lightning event, evidently originating from the location of a lightning strike. By estimating the distance to the strike (including the method many of us learned as children: counting the time between the flash of light and the sound of thunder), they determined the sphere was as much as 8 meters in diameter at its greatest size. They also estimated its speed to be about 8.6 meters per second (19 miles per hour). The whole event lasted roughly 1.12 seconds.
At its origin, the ball was a bright white-violet in color, but then it faded to orange and then red before vanishing. Analyzing the spectrum, the researchers identified silicon, iron, and calcium—three of the major chemical components in soil. (Aluminum is another common element in soil, but the authors pointed out that their cameras weren't able to spot the appropriate wavelengths to identify it.) Unfortunately, their equipment was insufficiently sophisticated to measure the ball lightning's temperature, but based on the incandescent properties, it was likely between 15,000 and 30,000° C.
That information primarily comes from eyewitness accounts; ball lightning is rare enough that no scientists have ever observed it in the field while they had equipment to measure its properties. At least not until the summer of 2012, when the authors of the new paper were out on the Qinghai Plateau in China during a thunderstorm, taking spectral readings of ordinary cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning.
Just a few minutes before midnight, the researchers' digital video cameras picked up a ball lightning event, evidently originating from the location of a lightning strike. By estimating the distance to the strike (including the method many of us learned as children: counting the time between the flash of light and the sound of thunder), they determined the sphere was as much as 8 meters in diameter at its greatest size. They also estimated its speed to be about 8.6 meters per second (19 miles per hour). The whole event lasted roughly 1.12 seconds.
At its origin, the ball was a bright white-violet in color, but then it faded to orange and then red before vanishing. Analyzing the spectrum, the researchers identified silicon, iron, and calcium—three of the major chemical components in soil. (Aluminum is another common element in soil, but the authors pointed out that their cameras weren't able to spot the appropriate wavelengths to identify it.) Unfortunately, their equipment was insufficiently sophisticated to measure the ball lightning's temperature, but based on the incandescent properties, it was likely between 15,000 and 30,000° C.
Hmmm. I don't have any material issues with Ars Technica as a source...but that 11second clip
is sure not anything like what I imagined proof of ball lightning would look like...
Hmmm. I don't have any material issues with Ars Technica as a source...but that 11second clip
is sure not anything like what I imagined proof of ball lightning would look like...
Here's one that strikes me as faked. They do a decent job illuminating the ground directly under the "ball," and to some extent on the rails,and the sparks flying around a couple of times are a nice touch as is the "internal reflection"in the camera, but there does not seem to be any illumination on the power lines and poles ABOVE the ball, and the illumination of the forest leaves and such near the end seems insufficient. I'd expect more reflections from the wet concrete as well, but I admit that is subjective. But it is shared pretty frequently on FB and on some supernatural/UFO forums as the real deal.
The Chinese case referred to in #3 and #4 above involved a lightning strike hitting the ground and vaporising soil materials. This is not typical of most reported cases of ball lightning, and may not be relevant to other cases.
As I mentioned in another thread, one of the best known previous reports, by Robert Jennison, has some odd circumstances about it, which need corroboration.
The Chinese case referred to in #3 and #4 above involved a lightning strike hitting the ground and vaporising soil materials. This is not typical of most reported cases of ball lightning, and may not be relevant to other cases.
I'm not 100% convinced even that one is ball lightning. Lightning going into the ground can create a phenomenon called fulgurites, where the rock/soil is literally melted leaving a narrow fused tunnel. So it would come as no surprise to me that the spectral analysis of that alleged ball lightning is that of soil. Of course, it may well be that ball lightning somehow 'is' such vapourised soil......I think that is one of the scientific contenders, though nobody has ever explained how it turns into a ball of plasma that goes floating off.
I hesitate to even add this one. Although I think it IS a ball of plasma and stuff, I am pretty sure it is a bit too large and far away to be an example of ball lightning:
i just wish people would do minimal research on these types of claims
Article:
Figure 1. Cartoon by Martijn illustrating the theory on Ball Lightning by Abrahamson and Dinniss.
Figure 4. The only sphere caught on a high-resolution photograph.
The spheres have the size of about 2-3 mm. On the movies and photographs they appear to be larger because they over-expose the sensor in the camera (Fig. 4). The spheres are quite different from normal sparks. The sparks emitted from the arc usually bounce one or perhaps two times, and then fade away. The spheres on the other hand live much longer, up to 6-8 seconds. They bounce around in various directions. As can be seen in the video, the height of the bounces varies. Careful examination of the video in slow motion reveals that some bounces are much higher than the previous bounce. The energy needed for this increase in height might come from the heat in the sphere, from an exothermic reaction going on in the sphere, or from rotational energy, if indeed the sphere is rotating. After the sphere extinguishes sometimes a residue seems to remain.
I remain gravely dubious that anything popularly called "ball lightning" is actually a thing, for several reasons:
Electromagnetic theory makes no prediction that anything like it need exist. It does predict all known forms of electrical discharge.
Anecdotal reports of it are wildly inconsistent. Reports of its size, color, behavior, noise, duration, movement, are all over the map. They certainly do not describe one thing. If there is such "a thing" as ball lightning, it is inconsistent with almost all reports.
The many popularly published and repeated "scientific explanations" are wholly speculative and none has ever been observed in nature.
It has no known properties, same as ghosts.
Most anecdotes have mundane alternate explanations.
The Chinese case referred to in #3 and #4 above involved a lightning strike hitting the ground and vaporising soil materials. This is not typical of most reported cases of ball lightning, and may not be relevant to other cases.
As I mentioned in another thread, one of the best known previous reports, by Robert Jennison, has some odd circumstances about it, which need corroboration.
I remain gravely dubious that anything popularly called "ball lightning" is actually a thing, for several reasons:
Electromagnetic theory makes no prediction that anything like it need exist. It does predict all known forms of electrical discharge.
Anecdotal reports of it are wildly inconsistent. Reports of its size, color, behavior, noise, duration, movement, are all over the map. They certainly do not describe one thing. If there is such "a thing" as ball lightning, it is inconsistent with almost all reports.
The many popularly published and repeated "scientific explanations" are wholly speculative and none has ever been observed in nature.
It has no known properties, same as ghosts.
Most anecdotes have mundane alternate explanations.
As ball lightning has no established properties, it cannot be argued to be a probable match for any given report. It is fair to say that it's likely that one or more unknown phenomena exist that have triggered eyewitness accounts of hovering balls of light, but there's insufficient theory to support assigning these accounts a positive identification of ball lightning. Indeed, as ball lightning can only honestly be described as an unknown, it would be illogical to use it as an explanation for any report.
I feel that's the starting point of the discourse. "Ball lightning" describes a bright ball of light that exists where no bright ball of light should be; it's transient, but lasts longer than lightning. It's a description of a phenomenon, or of a group of phenomena, but not an explanation.
There's no reason to assume that ball lightning is (solely) an electrical discharge.
There's no reason to assume that ball lightning always denotes the same physical phenomenon.
Ball lightning has been produced in the laboratory. But it's hard to observe in nature, so there's need for more research.
Luminiscence is a property. Ghosts are hard to reproduce in the lab, and unsupported by physical theory, so that's a red herring.
I am not read well enough to pronounce on "most anecdotes".
Of the phenomena that we currently can't explain, ball lighting seems to me to be the one where it's possible that a physical explanation may some day be found. I don't see why not.
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.
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.
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.
The authors list their top ten questions in current lightning research;
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
...apart from a general association with positive cloud-to-ground lightning, their root cause remains unknown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Attachments
Upward Electrical Discharges From Thunderstorm Tops.pdf
Whilst I broadly agree with your post, I think I disagree. I think everyone's heard the phrase, and some kind of report mentioning it, the core gamut of ball lightning behaviours is reasonably well defined in the folklore. It has to glow, it has to float/hover, it has to be inexplainable as anything else. The fuzzy edges of that gamut of behaviours, however, it completely ill-defined, which is why I believe the majority of ball lightning reports to be noise rather than signal. I am one of the people who claims to have seen an atmospheric effect that I can only describe as "ball lightning", and whilst thoughts of "that's weird" went through my mind at the time, at no point did I think "that violates the laws of physics" - mostly because it didn't actually do much at all. It was during possibly the liveliest lightning storm I'd ever encountered (as a poorly-travelled north european), even since, there's no reason to assume that the freakishly unlikely is impossible in unusual cirumstances. There's a lot of "that's weird" in science, that's how a lot of science gets discovered. However, when I hear most "folklore" reports, they don't sound even remotely believable, most violate some simple law of physics. And that annoys me, as it detracts attention from serious study of what I consider to be a real world effect.
I've seen many videos claiming to capture the elusive phenomenon of ball lightning. But I must say I have yet to see a single one that I genuinely believe captures the claimed phenomenon. So....a thread for all those cases that are disputable. Starting with this one...which I am fairly confident is actually just a white bird and slow flashing of the 'orb' is simply it flapping its wings....
There is another "orb" that some people in the comments seem to think is ball lightning - above and to the left of the lamp post, in the darker area of cloud. But it seems fairly evidently a mark or reflection on the glass, as it moves in sync with the camera motion relative to the door/window frame.
Here's another video which is interesting, although pretty low quality:
The two balls appear to form at the same time as the power goes off in the neighbouring building, and to originate from the power lines, so my best guess is some kind of molten metal from an overloaded line, which gets blown towards the camera by the wind. I'd expect more of a bright flash if the power line arced out though.
I have unlurked to add my experience as someone who (almost) witnessed ball lightning, a long time ago.
When I was about ten or eleven years old, my parents took us to an outdoor swimming pool. It was a very hot and humid day. I was happily splashing around as kids do when, out of nowhere, there was a terrifyingly loud crash, as if a bomb had gone off directly above the pool.
My parents and the other people who had actually been paying attention said that a slow-moving ball of light had descended over the pool and then exploded. They hadn't previously heard of ball lightning but it matched descriptions of the phenomenon. I can't remember whether there was further lightning or rain afterwards, but there wasn't before.
Now that I know how rare it is, I'm gutted I didn't see it myself!
Well, no...there is zero evidence that what you relate 'is' actually ball lightning. I am fully aware of those experiments. I do not believe the outcome is ball lightning.
Well, no...there is zero evidence that what you relate 'is' actually ball lightning. I am fully aware of those experiments. I do not believe the outcome is ball lightning.
I know forums where one would be castigated as a nasty debunker and there'd be calls for 'having an open mind'...if one pointed out that was the Sun. And there'd be people swearing it wasn't and that it zoomed off at 10,000 mph just after the end of the video.
It's no different to saying ' that's not a ghost'.....as I don't believe in ball lightning either. If ball lightning doesn't exist, by definition it can't be ball lightning.
It's no different to saying ' that's not a ghost'.....as I don't believe in ball lightning either. If ball lightning doesn't exist, by definition it can't be ball lightning.
Well, that's not really 'my' definition. It is just assumed that ball lightning is some sort of plasma.
I myself once had the very strange occurrence of, immediately after a close flash of lightning, an orange and green arc of light travelling very rapidly around the edge of the inside of the living room. In a split second it travelled about 20 feet. Indoor lightning ! I don't think this was ball lightning though....was probably some residual overcharge. In fact I have captured a lightning 'streamer' ( the things that go up into the sky ) just a few feet away from me on one occasion. So ordinary lightning is already weird enough without having to add new stuff.
I know forums where one would be castigated as a nasty debunker and there'd be calls for 'having an open mind'...if one pointed out that was the Sun. And there'd be people swearing it wasn't and that it zoomed off at 10,000 mph just after the end of the video.
The search for strange phenomena is similar in many respects to religious belief:
The prophecy was that the Virgin Mary (referred to as Our Lady of Fátima), would appear and perform miracles on that date. Newspapers published testimony from witnesses who said that they had seen extraordinary solar activity, such as the Sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the Earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors.
When one is deeply invested in a belief, skepticism and criticism are seen as "blasphemy", and that's as true for those who search for alien life, crypto-critters, or other phenomena as it is for the religious.
When one is deeply invested in a belief, skepticism and criticism are seen as "blasphemy", and that's as true for those who search for alien life as it is for the religious.
(This is not aimed at YOU, rather it is prompted by your post -- it's a response to a concept suggested to me by your post, rather than a critique of a person! I'm not assuming that you hold the point of view that your post reminded me of, but having been reminded I wanted to respond to my own thoughts that have been stimulated. Honestly! ^_^)
I might amend that to "CAN be seen as 'blasphemy.'" I'm pretty invested in my religious beliefs; I also try to think about them and am open to criticism of them or to seeking common ground with those who hold different beliefs while acknowledging and respecting the "uncommon ground" where we differ irreconcilably. All without resort to calls of blasphemy. (In my own thinking, "heresy" might come up from time to time, but as a technical term for the opposite of "orthodoxy," not as a pejorative. Though recognizing that it is generally seen as pejorative, I keep it in my own head! ^_^)
Now like most folks, I think I'm pretty smart -- but I don't think I invented that approach to thinking about religions, including my own. I learned it from those who came before me. So while recognizing the truth that at least some folks are unable to deal comfortably and amicably with questioning of their religious tenets, or paranormal beliefs, there are also at least SOME folks who can do so. Coming into a discussion of such issues (UFOlogical or religious or political or artistic or anything else where belief is tied up with a person's sense of who they are) with the assumption that criticism WILL be seen as blasphemy, with the implied hostility of that point of view, might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. How likely you/we are to be seen as blasphemers attacking Faith (in whatever) MAY be impacted by how much we expect to be treated as such, and so pre-emptively take a hostile or defensive stance.
There, got through that with only a bit of long-windedness. Apologies for the digression.
This is not aimed at YOU, rather it is prompted by your post -- it's a response to a concept suggested to me by your post, rather than a critique of a person! I'm not assuming that you hold the point of view that your post reminded me of, but having been reminded I wanted to respond to my own thoughts that have been stimulated. Honestly! ^_^)
I might amend that to "CAN be seen as 'blasphemy.'"
Sorry, I was using "blasphemy" in the colloquial sense. I did not intend to cause offense. It comes from the same Greek root as the word "blame", with the meaning "to speak ill of", but has been redefined by various religions to mean only against their particular god.
I might amend that to "CAN be seen as 'blasphemy.'" I'm pretty invested in my religious beliefs; I also try to think about them and am open to criticism of them or to seeking common ground with those who hold different beliefs while acknowledging and respecting the "uncommon ground" where we differ irreconcilably. All without resort to calls of blasphemy. (In my own thinking, "heresy" might come up from time to time, but as a technical term for the opposite of "orthodoxy," not as a pejorative. Though recognizing that it is generally seen as pejorative, I keep it in my own head! ^_^)
I don't find religious belief ( which I have myself ) all that surprising. Things like ball lightning are fascinating and intriguing but don't actually affect my life in any fundamental way other than a general desire for 'the truth'. I don't lie awake at night wondering if ball lighting is real....whereas I do sometimes lie awake wondering what the heck this crazy world is all about. And I think it is when things psychologically demand an answer that one gropes for whatever 'explanation' one can try to rationalise. Of course...quite how one ends up 'believing' stuff that has less actual evidence than ball lightning is another matter. It's a quirk of human nature that people do not always apply skepticism equally....even when they know they are not doing so.
