Ball Lightning

[Explorer]

Is it a real phenomena or a hoax?

It has the same characteristics as many UFO sightings, in as much as it is usually a transient phenomena, but nevertheless has been photographed.

It has been given the suffix "lightning", because it has mainly been observed during conventional thunder storms.

My question to both skeptics and woos, is, should this particular phenomena be treated any differently to UFOs, and/or other transient manifestations of objects unknown.

Discuss.

[Big Les]

I think the evidence (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040917.html) is purely anecdotal, make of that what you will.

[Kopji]

Is it a real phenomena or a hoax?

This choice seems too limited.

How about:

real
not real
a shared misperception (optical illusion)
hoax
some combination of the above


It has the same characteristics as many UFO sightings, in as much as it is usually a transient phenomena, but nevertheless has been photographed.

Ball lightning (or similar phenomena with plasma), has been created in the laboratory.
linky (http://www.physorg.com/news68812957.html)
UFO's do not offer us the same opportunity for experimentation and observation. They seem like different claims not only in scope but testability of the claim.

It has been given the suffix "lightning", because it has mainly been observed during conventional thunder storms.

I don't see a problem with this. Some words are more abstract than others.

My question to both skeptics and woos, is, should this particular phenomena be treated any differently to UFOs, and/or other transient manifestations of objects unknown.

The idea that 'greater claims require greater evidence' it tied to the fact that accepting the existence of ball lightning does not present us with nearly as many problems as the existence of ufo's does. Given the evidence, it seems more reasonable to accept ball lightening's existence, especially if we had also personally witnessed the phenomena.

UFO's are different. Accepting that UFO's are some advanced intelligence must be done in the face of the problems the claim creates. It is a 'greater claim' because it creates many more problems to be addressed.

[Lucky]

Phenomenon.

Hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax)? You seem to be asking whether it’s possible that every person who ever claimed to have witnessed it was lying. The answer to that is very plainly ‘no’ (strange question). There’s no doubt that ball lightening is a real phenomenon, but it’s still not clear what kind: electromagnetic or optical illusion.

I’d say that efforts to write it off as optical illusion are examples of over-zealous debunking. I think there’s more than enough evidence from eye-witnesses, with a bit of recent support from laboratory simulations, to justify cautious acceptance of ball lightning as a physical (as opposed to biological) phenomenon.

I think the evidence (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040917.html) is purely anecdotal, make of that what you will.There’s nothing new about the optical illusion theory; it was devised by Victorian physicists in response to a phenomenon they couldn’t understand. It’s worth bearing in mind that a prominent supporter of this theory was the same Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who ‘debunked’ the ancient earth theory required by paleontology and ‘proved’ that the earth was only about 20 million years old.

It’s obviously possible that miscellaneous phenomena occurring in thunderstorms, including poorly-understood plasma generation and behaviour, and optical illusions, have been lumped together.

[Nick Bogaerts]

The same Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who ‘debunked’ the ancient earth theory required by paleontology and ‘proved’ that the earth was only about 20 million years old.

Valid skepticism until the discovery of radioactivity.

[AmateurScientist]

Lab researchers in independent studies in Israel and in Germany have just this year replicated what they believe is similar to ball lightning.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/dn9293.html

http://www.physorg.com/news68812957.html

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/6/1

The jury's still out as to what link, if any, these experiments may have to the phenomenon we know as ball lightning, but it's not in the same league as UFOs being explained as being extraterrestrial visitors.

AS

[tube]

Of course, you don't need a lab to make your own "ball lightning" in the microwave oven: http://www.amasci.com/tesla/bigball2.html

MUCH cooler than Mentos in diet Coke....

[Fidelio]

This thread from '03 may interest you.

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=5977&highlight=Ball+lightning

[Lucky]

The same Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who ‘debunked’ the ancient earth theory required by paleontology and ‘proved’ that the earth was only about 20 million years old.

Valid skepticism until the discovery of radioactivity.I don't agree. My point is that his back-of-envelope calculation, if valid, would completely negate an enormous body of evidence in paleontology and geology (in fact, it would undermine the foundations of these disciplines). This was pointed out to him but apparently didn't cause him to question his assumptions.

He should have been more sceptical of his own claim.

[drfrank]

I'd say that the laboratory reproduction of something similar to that which has been witnessed (as handily posted by AmateurScientist), coupled with a lot of eyewitness accounts (some from rational sources), points to what is probably a real phenomenon.

Of course, anecdotal evidence is enormously unreliable, but the difference between ball lightning and, say, ghosts/ufos, is that there is no underlying psychological reason for wanting to believe that ball lightning exists. Ball lightning does not make the world a significantly happier/more exciting place.

[Lucky]

Of course, anecdotal evidence is enormously unreliable, but the difference between ball lightning and, say, ghosts/ufos, is that there is no underlying psychological reason for wanting to believe that ball lightning exists. Ball lightning does not make the world a significantly happier/more exciting place.Well, there could be some underlying psychological motivation, just not very strong. If I hear about some remarkable and dramatic natural phenomenon then on the whole I’d like it to be true. Obviously I try to be open-minded and unbiased, but it’s possible that I am unconsciously viewing positive evidence more favourably than negative.

Interestingly, though, there also seems to be some underlying psychological motivation for an over-sceptical view (again, not very strong). In the thread from 2003 (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=5977&highlight=Ball+lightning) that Fidelio linked to, several posters seemed to be trying to hold on to an increasingly untenable ‘sceptical’ position. A couple of them stated that there are no photographs. When this was shown to be wrong (in fact, a link was posted to a remarkable and convincing photograph, and the person who took it joined in to answer questions), the important new evidence didn’t seem to make the difference that it should.

After all, why on earth shouldn’t ball lightning occur? We have nowhere near enough understanding of electromagnetic effects in storms to label it implausible. There’s simply no comparison with supernatural or other ‘woo’ claims. I think this kind of over-scepticism, which is usually from non-scientists, arises from an exaggerated notion of our current level of scientific understanding.

[Nick Bogaerts]

I don't agree. My point is that his back-of-envelope calculation, if valid, would completely negate an enormous body of evidence in paleontology and geology (in fact, it would undermine the foundations of these disciplines). This was pointed out to him but apparently didn't cause him to question his assumptions.

And reversely, accepting an old age for the Earth was in direct contradiction with the laws of physics as known at the time.

[Amapola]

After all, why on earth shouldn’t ball lightning occur? We have nowhere near enough understanding of electromagnetic effects in storms to label it implausible. There’s simply no comparison with supernatural or other ‘woo’ claims. I think this kind of over-scepticism, which is usually from non-scientists, arises from an exaggerated notion of our current level of scientific understanding.

It's true we don't have a lot of understanding of this. I read the Wikipedia article (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning)) and I guess that there are several theories. There is a problem with at least one theory as they say here:
Difficult features of the lightning include its persistence and its near-neutral buoyancy in air. A popular hypothesis is that ball lightning is a highly ionized plasma contained by self-generated magnetic fields: a plasmoid. This hypothesis is not initially credible. If the gas is highly ionized, and if it is near thermodynamic equilibrium, then it must be very hot. Since it must be in pressure equilibrium with the surrounding air, it will be much lighter and hence float up rapidly. Magnetic fields, if present, might provide the plasmoid's coherence, but will not reduce this buoyancy. In addition a hot plasma cannot persist for long, because of recombination and heat conduction.

They go on to state various other ideas that might work out better.

I'd always thought ball lightning was a known phenomenon. It was interesting to read this thread, and the wiki article and learn that there is some doubt.

[Apollyon]

I've seen what I believe very clearly to be ball lighting. I was a weather observer and forecaster in the Air Force long ago, so I have a passing familiarity with weather phenomena. Unfortunately my only proof of ball lightning is anecdotal. Nevertheless, it's the one semi-woo subject I will always be convinced truly exists.