Ball Lightning.
A glowing sphere the size of a grapefruit drifts through a farmhouse kitchen during a storm, floats along at head height, and disappears out the window — or bursts with a crack and the smell of sulphur. For centuries, reports like this were filed under superstition, and serious scientists doubted the thing existed at all. Then, in 2012, a Chinese team studying ordinary lightning accidentally caught one on a spectrometer. Ball lightning is real. What it is remains one of the oldest open questions in atmospheric physics.
AnomalyDesk is reader-supported. Articles may contain affiliate links to books and primary-document collections. Read our full funding disclosure.
What ball lightning is, in a paragraph.
Ball lightning is the name for luminous, roughly spherical objects that appear during or after thunderstorms and behave nothing like the forked flash of ordinary lightning. Across thousands of consistent reports spanning centuries, the phenomenon is described as a glowing ball, usually between a few centimetres and a metre across, most often the size of a grapefruit or a person's head; white, orange, red, or blue; lasting from a second to occasionally tens of seconds — far longer than a lightning bolt. It drifts or floats rather than falls, moves horizontally, sometimes against the wind, can pass through window glass or down a chimney, may hug the ground or hover at head height, and typically ends by fading silently or bursting with a loud bang, occasionally leaving a smell of sulphur or ozone. For most of scientific history it was treated with deep suspicion — many physicists suspected witnesses were describing afterimages of a normal lightning flash (a retinal or perceptual illusion) rather than a real object — because it was fleeting, unpredictable, and had never been produced or measured in a controlled way. That skepticism has largely given way: the sheer volume and internal consistency of independent reports, some from trained observers, and above all a rare 2012 spectral recording by researchers at Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China — who, while studying ordinary lightning, happened to record the light of a natural ball-lightning event and found spectral lines of silicon, iron, and calcium, elements found in soil — have moved the mainstream to accept it as a genuine physical phenomenon. That 2012 result also lent support to the leading theory, the vaporized-silicon (or “Abrahamson-Dinniss”) hypothesis: that when lightning strikes soil, it vaporizes silicon compounds, which condense into a fine filamentary network of silicon nanoparticles that slowly oxidize in air, glowing as they burn — a chemical, rather than purely electrical, ball of fire. Other models compete: a trapped plasma or microwave field (Pyotr Kapitsa's idea of a maser-like cavity), oxidizing aerosol or charged-particle structures, and various plasma-physics proposals; and at least some reports may still be misperceptions — a 2010 study noted that the magnetic fields of certain lightning strikes could induce hallucinated luminous shapes (phosphenes) in nearby observers, plausibly accounting for a subset of “through-the-window” sightings. The honest state of the file is unusual and worth stating plainly: the phenomenon is real, but no single explanation is established, no theory yet accounts for every reported feature, and no one has convincingly reproduced true ball lightning on demand in a laboratory. Ball lightning belongs in this pillar as a rare and instructive thing — a case where centuries of eyewitness “folklore” turned out to be pointing at something physical that science had simply failed to catch.
The documented record.
The reports are consistent and old
The description is stable across centuries. Verified Thousands of independent accounts — from the 1638 Widecombe church strike onward — describe a glowing, drifting sphere associated with thunderstorms, with strikingly consistent size, duration, and behavior [1][2].
It is now accepted as real
Mainstream doubt has receded. Disputed The volume and consistency of reports, plus direct measurement, have moved most atmospheric scientists to treat ball lightning as a genuine phenomenon rather than pure illusion [2][3].
It was caught on a spectrometer in 2012
There is one direct natural measurement. Verified A 2012 Lanzhou team recording ordinary lightning inadvertently captured a natural ball-lightning event, whose spectrum showed silicon, iron, and calcium — soil elements [3].
The vaporized-silicon theory leads
A chemical model fits key facts. Disputed The Abrahamson-Dinniss hypothesis — oxidizing silicon nanoparticles from lightning-struck soil — is the leading explanation and is consistent with the 2012 soil-element spectrum, though not proven [3][4].
The competing positions.
The explanations fall into three families. Disputed Chemical models (vaporized, oxidizing silicon) currently lead. Plasma/electromagnetic models — trapped plasma, a microwave field held in a self-generated cavity (Kapitsa), or magnetically confined charge — account for other features such as passing through glass. Perceptual models hold that at least some reports are magnetically induced phosphenes (hallucinated light) rather than external objects, as argued in a 2010 study [4][5].
At the fringe, ball lightning is sometimes invoked to explain UFO sightings, poltergeists, or “earth-energy” claims. Unverified Some genuine UAP and light reports may well be ball lightning; but the phenomenon is an unexplained natural event, not evidence for anything paranormal, and this archive treats it as a physics problem [2].
The unanswered questions.
A single accepted mechanism
No theory explains everything. Disputed No model yet accounts for the full range of reported behaviors — long duration, passing through glass, indoor appearances, silent fading versus explosive endings — simultaneously [4].
Reliable reproduction
It cannot be made to order. Disputed Various labs have produced luminous plasma or glowing silicon balls with some ball-lightning-like traits, but nothing that convincingly reproduces the natural phenomenon in full [3][4].
How many reports are real objects
The perceptual fraction is unknown. Claimed How many sightings are genuine external events versus induced phosphenes or misperceived ordinary lightning is not established [5].
Primary material.
The accessible record on ball lightning is held principally in these sources:
- Historical accounts such as the 1638 Great Thunderstorm at Widecombe-in-the-Moor, and large modern collections of eyewitness reports.
- The 2012 Lanzhou spectral recording of a natural ball-lightning event (Cen, Yuan, and Xue).
- The Abrahamson & Dinniss (2000) vaporized-silicon hypothesis and subsequent lab work on oxidizing silicon.
- Plasma and microwave-cavity models (e.g., Kapitsa) and the 2010 phosphene-induction study (Peer & Kendl).
Critical individual sources include: the 2012 spectrum; the Abrahamson-Dinniss chemical model; and the perceptual-induction literature.
The sequence.
- 1638 The Great Thunderstorm at Widecombe-in-the-Moor: an early well-documented apparent ball-lightning event in an English church.
- 19th–20th c. Reports accumulate; many scientists doubt the phenomenon is real, suspecting afterimages.
- 1955 Pyotr Kapitsa proposes a microwave/plasma-cavity model.
- 2000 Abrahamson and Dinniss publish the vaporized-silicon hypothesis.
- 2010 Peer and Kendl argue some sightings are magnetically induced phosphenes.
- 2012 A Lanzhou team records the spectrum of a natural ball-lightning event, showing soil elements.
- Present Ball lightning is accepted as real, with the vaporized-silicon model leading but no explanation settled.
Full bibliography.
- Historical and modern eyewitness compilations of ball lightning, including the 1638 Widecombe-in-the-Moor account.
- Reviews of ball-lightning reports and the history of scientific acceptance (atmospheric-physics literature).
- Cen, J., Yuan, P., and Xue, S. Spectral observation of a natural ball-lightning event (2012).
- Abrahamson, J., and Dinniss, J. "Ball lightning caused by oxidation of nanoparticle networks from normal lightning strikes on soil" (2000), and later lab work.
- Peer, J., and Kendl, A. Study proposing magnetically induced phosphenes for some ball-lightning reports (2010); Kapitsa's microwave-cavity model (1955).
Frequently asked questions.
Is ball lightning real?
Yes. After centuries of scientific doubt, ball lightning is now widely accepted as a genuine natural phenomenon, based on the huge number of consistent eyewitness reports and, crucially, a 2012 recording of the light-spectrum of a natural event. What remains unresolved is the mechanism, not the existence.
What causes ball lightning?
There is no settled answer. The leading theory is that lightning striking soil vaporizes silicon, which forms nanoparticles that slowly oxidize and glow — supported by the 2012 spectrum showing soil elements. Competing models involve trapped plasma or microwave fields, and some reports may be visual illusions induced by a lightning strike's magnetic field.
Can ball lightning pass through walls or windows?
Many reports describe it passing through closed windows or moving indoors, which is one of the hardest features for any theory to explain and part of why the phenomenon remains open. Whether this reflects a real physical process or misperception in some cases is still debated.
Has ball lightning been made in a laboratory?
Labs have produced glowing plasma and oxidizing-silicon balls that share some traits with ball lightning, but nothing that convincingly reproduces the full natural phenomenon on demand. That inability to reliably recreate it is a major reason no single explanation has been confirmed.