Among the many reports, perhaps 15 were made by scientists, including some quite distinguished in fields like astronomy, physics, and atmospheric science. The staff of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University in the UK reported one such observation. There have been a few photographs by observers who saw the phenomenon and snapped a picture. There have been many more photographs from cameras left on time exposure to record lightning in a storm, with a ball lightning image discovered later when the film was developed. There have also been a few reports of man-made ball lightning. Some of these were accidents, like the unintentional shorting of a large submarine battery, but others were planned. Plasma physicists have produced “plasmoids,” spheres of magnetically self-confined plasma that bear some resemblance to ball lightning, but these were created only in good vacuum conditions and had millisecond lifetimes or less. There were also Soviet experiments in 1977 in which researchers used electrical discharges with potentials of up to 12 kV to vaporize tubes of ice or plastic in atmosphere, producing brilliant balls about the same size as those reported for ball lightning, but these also lasted only a few milliseconds. Systematic efforts to create long-lived balls from discharges have not been successful.
For the past few centuries, reports of ball lightning have attracted the attention of many scientists, including Arago, Faraday, Arrhenius, Kelvin, Boys, and Kapitza. Faraday doubted the existence of ball lightning, but many others have speculated on its underlying mechanism. However, the ball lightning characteristics of high energy content, floating or moving in mid-air at atmospheric pressure (instead of rising or falling), and the relatively long lifetime has eluded plausible theoretical explanation. Nevertheless, the literature of published papers and conference proceedings contains on the order of 100 theories attempting to explain ball lightning. However, not one of these theories has gained acceptance outside its own circle of advocates. This is the kind of scientific situation that arises when rival theories describe a rare and mysterious phenomenon, so that the predictions of the theories cannot be checked against detailed observations or laboratory tests.
The multiplicity of theories can be classified into four categories: (1) ball lightning is formed by the separation of matter from a bright channel of ordinary lightning; (2) ball lightning is formed by the excitation or combustion of some clump of matter (perhaps from the ground or from a tree) by normal lightning; (3) ball lightning is produced when fuel gasses in the atmosphere are ignited by a lightning stroke; and (4) ball lightning is produced as an electrical discharge by electromagnetic radiation emitted in an atmospheric process. Theories in category (4) can be subdivided into those in which the energy source is within the ball and those in which the energy source is external. For this column, I will limit myself to two of the many theories of ball lightning.
* * * *
There are a number of theories in categories (2) and (3) that focus on a chemical explanation of ball lightning. The basic hypothesis is that a lightning strike creates an “aeronet,” a fractal tangle of fibers that has very low density, approaching that of air at atmospheric pressure, and can therefore float rather than falling to the ground. In part, this idea is motivated by observations of filamentary structure in lightning balls and the observation that dye molecules in electric fields can form spheres of fibers. In a scenario proposed by Abrahamson and Dinniss, a lightning stroke produces a fiber network formed by chains of nanoparticles made of metal or metal compounds susceptible to oxidation. The large surface area of such a network and the subsequent oxidation of the material are used to account for the glow and the energy release.
In my view, the serious problem with all such explanations, and indeed with all theories that fall into categories (1) through (3) above, is that in many instances ball lightning has been observed to pass easily through a glass windowpane without damaging the glass. At least for lightning balls with this capability, the passage through glass would seem to rule out any explanation that involves combustion of gas or self-confined plasmas or transport of glowing matter.
* * * *
This leaves the theories in category (4), involving some form of electromagnetic process. I find the most compelling of these to be the maser-caviton theory of Handel and Leitner, building on previous ideas of Kapitza. The basic idea is that the high electric field pulse accompanying a lightning stroke in a flat terrain can create a population inversion from the storage of energy in the rotational energy levels of water molecules. The large atmospheric maser (i.e., laser for microwaves) thereby created can occupy a volume of several cubic miles and can last for many seconds. This restless sea of stored energy can form an elaborate and irregular standing wave pattern, which “spikes” in some locations. At such a spike, the ball lightning discharge forms and is fed by the action of the maser, drawing energy from the entire maser volume. The result is what is called a “soliton” of electromagnetic radiation, forming a hot cavity in the high-field region surrounded by a glowing plasma of ionized air.
This scenario fits many of the observations. Such a soliton could pass through glass unimpeded, since only microwaves need to make the passage. The observed irregular motions and interaction with conducting objects could be explained by the standing waves, because distant conducting objects (e.g., cars on a road outside or wind blown trees) should cause shifts in the standing wave patterns and move the spike of energy. Similarly, the observed buoyancy in air is consistent, since there is no mass to support. The reports of lightning balls entering structures like buildings and airplanes and doing little damage is also consistent, because the structure boundaries would restrict the maser volume from which the lightning ball could draw energy.
The problem with the Handel-Leitner theory is that it is difficult to test. Production of cubic miles of population-inverted water molecules is not something readily done in the laboratory. There have been demonstrations of 0.2-GHz microwaves after electrical discharges in moist air, but these results are only suggestive. Perhaps a definitive confirmation of the theory might be supplied by detecting the presence of strong microwaves accompanying ball lightning. However, the rarity of ball lightning events makes such an observation rather unlikely.
* * * *
Are there SF implications for ball lightning? As I said in the introduction, I've already used it in Twistor as a techno-prop to create a weak link between shadow universes, but it may have other uses.
I like the Handel-Leitner theory because of its SF possibilities. One could imagine a weapon that harnesses the energy present in a thunderstorm to throw lightning balls at the opposition. Or an alien planet that has a permanent population-inverted volume pumped by lightning or tidal forces, where ball lightning is a common occurrence, a normal part of the environment. Or perhaps known phenomena like the Great Red Spot of Jupiter could be explained by maser action in the very active Jovian atmosphere. In any case, there are likely to be further developments in this area. I'll try to report them if and when they occur.
AV Columns Online: Electronic reprints of over 120 “The Alternate View” columns by John G. Cramer, previously published in Analog, are available online at: www.npl.washington.edu/av. The paper referenced below can be obtained at: www.arxiv.org.
References:
Ball Lightning Overviews
“Recently reported sightings of ball lightning...", J. Abrahamson, A. V. Bychkov, and V. L. Bychkov, Phil. Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 360, 11-35 (2002).
“Ball lightning—The scientific effort", Stanley Singer, Phil. Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 360, 5-9 (2002).
Ball Lightning Theories
“Ball lightning caused by oxidation of nanoparticle networks...", J. Abrahamson and J. Dinniss, Nature 403, 519-521 (2000).
“Development of the maser-caviton ball lightning theory", P. H. Handel and J-F. Leitner, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 10,689-10,691 (1994).
Copyright (c) 2005 John G. Cramer
[Back to Table of Contents]
&
nbsp; * * *
Brass Tacks: Letters From Our Readers
Dear Dr. Schmidt:
I just finished reading your June 2005 editorial on “Zero-Pollution Solutions.” In the late 1970s or early 1980s when I was still teaching geography, I remember a proposal to extract energy from the Gulf Stream where it passed between Florida and Cuba. Nothing came of it, possibly because of technical challenges. What concerned me was the possibility of extracting a significant amount of energy so that the Gulf Stream would no longer have sufficient energy to continue north in the Atlantic and remain the North Atlantic Drift current that moderates the temperature in Western Europe. Changes in the North Atlantic Drift have occurred in the geologic past and will occur in the future, but to force such a change over a very short period of time would result in worldwide changes with devastating effects on the economies of Western Europe. Again, unexpected effects from apparent good intentions. Off hand, extracting energy from sunlight appears to have the least negative environmental effects, but there may be problems with that that I don't anticipate. I've seen the experimental wind farm on the western end of Prince Edward Island and am concerned about large wind farms now being developed in California. There is a proposal to build a similar wind farm offshore of Boston Harbor but so far there has been considerable opposition to it, primarily by those concerned about the local bird population. My concerns are more about climatic changes as more and more of these wind farms are developed around the globe. As clearly shown by our weather forecasting brethren, understanding of the wind patterns of the globe is very complex and until adequate data can be acquired as to how these wind patterns interrelate, our forecasts are really no better than those made 30 or 40 years ago. Note how often several computer models are used, illustrating how unsure meteorologists are as to what data are necessary to improve forecasting skills. We can afford to experiment in small areas with different methods of extracting energy, but we really need to know more than we do about the interrelationships of barometric pressure with the resultant winds before going large scale with such technology. Likewise the interrelationships of the winds with the ocean currents and differences in water temperature. There still are large economies of energy usage to be obtained by conservation, which currently (sic) seems of little interest to the world.
Loren Gould, Prof. Emeritus
Hardwick, MA
* * * *
Sir,
Sorry to have left the magazine on the dining room table for the two days since delivery, but it is final examination grading time and that always fills me with a strong desire for intake of bourbon, not literature. Ah, well, having no spirituous liquors in the house, the heady delight of your editorial, followed by BT letters and then the stories, will retrieve my eyebrows from the overhead.
I am writing, just this short note, to mention that Eric Lipps’ BT letter (July/August) on John Cramer's article, concerning “phantom energy” [clichés] rang a bell, struck a chord, etc.[/clichés] with past SF reading. It reminded me of my old friend Bob Heinlein's “Waldo/Magic, Inc.” stories from the 1940s, wherein the spoiled myasthenic youngster hooked up with the Pennsylvania “Dutch” hex doctor who had the path to the “other world” where this mysterious energy came from well in hand. I could envision the wriggling fingers of the “deKalbs” even as I sympathized with Mr. Lipps’ gentle jab at John.
Dwight Scott Miller
In the woods near Hearne, Texas
* * * *
Dr. Schmidt,
I generally agree with your editorial “Inevitable Clichés” (Analog, July/August 2005), but there is one point on which I must take issue. There are significant questions about clones, both per se and in their relation to society.
The most important issue is that behavior, custom, law, and politics are not always driven by objective consideration. If you look at the current debate about abortion, it will be clear how fragile the separation of Church and State. I see no reason why an author wouldn't extrapolate a future in which those holding that clones are soulless would pass laws reflecting their beliefs. I see no reason why such stories, if well written, would not be appropriate in Analog.
A secondary consideration is the statement that what the press describes as clones are, in fact, not clones, but simply the closest that we can come with current biotechnology. The experiments that have been conducted to date have involved denucleation of an ovum and insertion of a nucleus from a somatic cell. The resulting ovum is a hybrid, containing cytoplasmic DNA from one source and nuclear DNA from another. The difference might be too subtle to matter, but I'm not aware of any evidence either way, and superficially it seems like a reasonable issue for an author to explore.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Annandale, VA
* * * *
Dear Stanley Schmidt:
Thank you so much for “The Time Traveler's Wife” and “In the Loop."
It's so nice to read about people who are nice, and trying to do the right thing, so that life will be better for those around them.
I was so overwhelmed with emotion on reading those two stories that I burst into tears.
I have just finished writing an invited article entitled “Difficult Decisions: Ethics in Research” to be published in a scientific journal, and I suppose I may be a little overwrought on the topic of the need to make the world a better place as best we can. But still, it was just so nice.
Thank you for caring about what happens.
Manuella Adrian
* * * *
Dear Stan,
In the July/August 2005 issue, Wil McCarthy's Science Fact article on his “Mission to Utah” at the Mars Society Desert Research Station mentioned the minimal bathing resulting from limited water and limited energy to heat water. He claimed that humans have a natural scent, a natural coating of oils and bacteria adapted specifically for the purpose of protecting our skin, and that “after four or five days it stops being gross and starts feeling sort of, well, natural.” He also said that taking a shower after he got home made his skin feel “dry and itchy for hours."
McCarthy may be right about a protective effect from natural oils and bacteria. Ernie Pyle, in “Here Is Your War” (ISBN 0-88029-405-1), reported going without baths for five and six weeks at a time as a war correspondent in Africa in World War II. Pyle said, on pages 292-293, “I discovered I was a guy who could take baths or leave them alone. Certainly my unsanitary condition didn't undermine my health, for I had never felt better than during those long dirty periods.
“We found out one thing about baths at the front—if we didn't bathe for a long time the fleas didn't bother us. Apparently we either built up a protective coating that they couldn't get through or else we became too revolting even for fleas. Whatever the reason, I knew of rash people who took an occasional bath and were immediately set upon by fleas, while we filthy characters sailed along blissful and unbitten."
My personal experience does not match either of theirs. I went three weeks without a bath once, and it kept right on feeling gross to me. I agree with McCarthy's wife—if you don't take baths, you reek.
This is how it happened: I took a five-week backpacking trip in the Wyoming Rockies with the National Outdoor Leadership School. For most of the trip, we were at high altitudes. It was only June, and the lakes up there were still frozen over. Nobody was tough enough to chop a hole in the ice and jump in, so we had washcloth “baths” for three weeks while carrying heavy packs over the Continental Divide. When our itinerary led us to camp at a lake only partly frozen over, everybody took baths. Even though it was literally ice water, it was worth it to be clean. When we got out of the mountains, we visited a hot springs resort, where I had a hot, soapy shower followed by a long hot soak. My skin did not itch in the slightest. It felt great to be clean.
I wonder if the difference in effects of not bathing was due to a difference in production of skin oils. Some people have dry facial skin while others have acne, so why shouldn't there be a range for
oil production on the rest of the body? A person on the low end of the range might be comfortable not bathing for weeks, while somebody higher up the scale might not. I had acne at the time, which argues that my skin oil production was in high gear.
Ann Knudson
Bismarck, ND
[Back to Table of Contents]
* * *
Upcoming Events
by Anthony Lewis
December is a slow time of the year for science fiction conventions.
25-27 November 2005
Darkover Grand Council 27 (Marion Zimmer Bradley-oriented conference) at Holiday Inn Timonium, Timonium MD. Guest of Honor: C.S. Friedman. Special Guest: Katherine Kurtz. Musical Guest of Honor: Clam Chowder. Registration: $40 until 1 November 2005; $45 thereafter (checks to Armida Council). Info: www.darkovercon.com; Box 7203, Silver Spring MD 20907.
25-27 November 2005
Analog SFF, December 2005 Page 23
