What Is Ball Lightning? The 2,000-Year-Old Mystery Science Almost Solved

Ball lightning is the most embarrassing weather phenomenon in atmospheric science. For at least 2,000 years, people have reported watching glowing spheres of light, roughly the size of a grapefruit or a beach ball, drift through thunderstorms, slip through closed windows, hover near the kitchen ceiling, and then either fizzle out politely or detonate with a bang that smells like burning sulfur. The witnesses include Roman historians, Russian physicists, an entire submarine crew, and, repeatedly, very sober airline pilots. The problem is that nobody can reliably reproduce it in a lab, nobody fully agrees on what it is, and a small, stubborn minority of researchers still suspect the whole thing might be a 2,000-year-old optical illusion. That is the kind of mystery we like at Pudgy Cat.

Table of Contents

• What Is Ball Lightning, Exactly
• A Brief, Strange History of Ball Lightning Sightings
• What Witnesses Consistently Describe
• Science Tries, and Mostly Fails, to Explain It
• The Silicon Vapor Theory
• Plasma, Microwaves, and Other Suspects
• The Hallucination Hypothesis
• The One Time Ball Lightning Was Caught on Instruments
• How to Recognize Ball Lightning (If You Ever See It)
• Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Ball Lightning, Exactly

Ball lightning is the name physicists use for a glowing, roughly spherical object that appears during or just after a thunderstorm, hovers or drifts horizontally for several seconds, and then disappears, sometimes with a small explosion. The size ranges from about a centimeter across to two meters, the color is most often white, yellow, orange, or red, and the lifetime is usually between one and ten seconds. That is the entire reliable description. Everything beyond it is contested.

The phenomenon is rare but not exotic. Surveys done in Russia, Germany, France, and the United States suggest that somewhere between three and ten percent of the adult population claims to have seen ball lightning at least once. That is roughly the same fraction of people who have seen a tornado up close, except tornadoes have radar signatures, photographs, and a National Weather Service. Ball lightning has anecdotes and a 2,000-year argument.

A Brief, Strange History of Ball Lightning Sightings

The earliest written account that historians generally accept as ball lightning is from a 1638 storm in Widecombe-in-the-Moor, England. A glowing ball about two and a half meters across reportedly entered the church through a window during a service, smashed pews, killed four people, injured around sixty, and then exited through another wall. Locals blamed the devil. The vicar, who survived, wrote it up as a meteorological event, which was unusually rational for 1638.

The most famous historical sighting belongs to physicist Georg Wilhelm Richmann, who in 1753 in Saint Petersburg attempted to measure atmospheric electricity during a thunderstorm using a grounded rod, in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment. A pale blue ball of light reportedly traveled along the rod, jumped onto Richmann’s forehead, and killed him instantly. His engraver, who was standing nearby taking notes, survived and produced the only contemporary illustration. Richmann is sometimes called the first scientist killed by the thing he was studying, which is an unkind way to remember a careful experimentalist who, otherwise, did most things right.

The 20th century added thousands of reports. In 1963, on a British European Airways flight from New York to London, scientist Roger Jennison watched a glowing sphere about 22 centimeters in diameter emerge from the pilots’ cabin after a lightning strike, float down the aisle at roughly his shoulder height, and disappear toward the tail. Jennison was a respected radio astronomer, the witnesses included the entire crew, and the report became one of the first peer-reviewed accounts in a major physics journal. Pilots have been quietly logging similar sightings ever since.

What Witnesses Consistently Describe

If you collect a few thousand ball lightning reports and look for the patterns that survive, a surprisingly consistent profile emerges. This is one of the reasons many physicists are reluctant to dismiss the phenomenon as mass hallucination. Hallucinations tend not to converge this neatly.

The Common Features

• Spherical or near-spherical shape, with a soft, slightly fuzzy edge rather than a hard outline.
• Size between 10 and 40 centimeters in roughly 80 percent of reports, with outliers on both ends.
• Lifetime of 1 to 10 seconds, with the rare long-lived ball reported at up to a minute.
• Horizontal motion, often hovering or drifting at the speed of a walking person, sometimes seemingly attracted to metal objects or open windows.
• Color in the white, yellow, orange, or red band, with blue and green minority reports.
• Termination by silent fade or sharp bang, occasionally leaving a residue or scorch mark and frequently producing a smell witnesses describe as ozone, burning sulfur, or hot metal.

The ozone and sulfur smell is particularly suggestive, because both are produced when high-voltage electrical discharges interact with air. That detail keeps electromagnetic explanations alive even when other parts of the description sound impossible.

Science Tries, and Mostly Fails, to Explain It

Ball lightning is hard to explain because it breaks the rules of normal lightning in three uncomfortable ways. First, a regular lightning bolt lasts microseconds, while ball lightning lasts seconds, which is about a million times longer. Second, the energy density required to make a glowing sphere visible for that long, in open air, should be enough to either explode it immediately or cool it instantly. Third, the ball appears to move in defiance of buoyancy, sometimes drifting horizontally against the wind, sometimes following metal surfaces, sometimes ignoring them.

Over the last century, physicists have proposed at least 30 different mechanisms. None of them explains all the features. Some explain the lifetime but not the motion. Some explain the motion but not the explosion. Some explain everything except why the ball does not blow up the moment it forms. The honest scientific position is that ball lightning is probably not one phenomenon, but several, all of which happen to look similar to a startled observer.

The Silicon Vapor Theory

The most popular current explanation, proposed by chemists John Abrahamson and James Dinniss at the University of Canterbury in 2000, blames silicon. The idea is that when a lightning bolt strikes soil rich in silicon dioxide, the intense heat vaporizes the silicon and chemically reduces it into pure, very fine silicon nanoparticles. These particles condense into a fluffy, low-density network of filaments that hangs in the air like a tiny aerogel cloud. Because pure silicon burns when exposed to oxygen, the cloud slowly oxidizes from the outside in, glowing as it does so. When the reaction reaches a denser core, it can finish with a small bang.

The silicon vapor theory is attractive because it has been partially reproduced in the lab. Researchers have created small, glowing silicon-rich balls by passing high currents through silicon wafers and through soil, and the resulting fireballs survive for a few seconds, drift horizontally, and end with a smell. The catch is that lab versions are small, dim, and not very dramatic, and the theory still does not explain reports of ball lightning passing through closed glass windows without breaking them, which witnesses describe more often than chance would predict.

Plasma, Microwaves, and Other Suspects

Other proposed mechanisms get more exotic. One family of theories holds that ball lightning is a stable plasma vortex, a kind of self-contained electromagnetic knot that holds itself together with its own magnetic field. Physicists Pyotr Kapitsa and, much later, Hans-Peter Popp have explored versions of this idea, in which a lightning strike creates a localized microwave cavity inside a region of ionized air. The microwave field traps a plasma ball, which keeps glowing as long as the field sustains it. This explains the long lifetime and the ability to pass near windows without destroying them, but the energy requirements are uncomfortable.

Another theory, proposed by John Lowke at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia, suggests that ball lightning is sustained by ionized air from a continuing lightning strike still flowing through the ground. The ball is essentially the visible tip of an invisible electrical fountain. This explains why ball lightning is often reported near the strike point and why it can appear inside aircraft, where the fuselage acts as a conductor.

The Hallucination Hypothesis

When the Brain Itself Becomes the Phenomenon

In 2010, Austrian researchers Joseph Peer and Alexander Kendl proposed that a significant fraction of ball lightning reports are not external events at all, but magnetophosphenes: visual hallucinations produced when a strong, rapidly changing magnetic field induces currents directly in the visual cortex. Lightning bolts are powerful enough to generate such fields at close range, and laboratory transcranial magnetic stimulation experiments routinely produce glowing balls in the field of view of test subjects.

Under this hypothesis, when you see a glowing sphere drift through your living room after a nearby lightning strike, the sphere is in your head, not in your living room. The theory explains why witnesses report balls passing through walls (the hallucination follows the eye, not the room) and why no camera has ever cleanly captured one, even though billions of phones are now pointed at thunderstorms. It does not explain the scorch marks, the smells, the multi-witness reports from inside aircraft, or the rare physical damage. So at best, magnetophosphenes are part of the answer, not all of it.

The One Time Ball Lightning Was Caught on Instruments

In July 2012, a team of Chinese researchers from Northwest Normal University were on the Tibetan Plateau studying ordinary lightning when, by complete accident, they pointed a spectrograph and a high-speed camera at the right patch of ground at the right second. A regular cloud-to-ground lightning bolt struck the soil, and a glowing ball about five meters in diameter appeared next to the strike point, drifted horizontally for about 1.6 seconds, and faded. The spectrograph recorded the chemical fingerprint of the light, and the result was almost embarrassingly tidy: strong emission lines from silicon, iron, and calcium, the three elements you would expect if a lightning bolt had just vaporized topsoil.

The Tibetan plateau observation, published in Physical Review Letters in 2014, is the only ball lightning event ever captured with proper scientific instruments. It supports the silicon vapor theory, more or less. It also remains a sample size of exactly one, which is not enough to declare the mystery closed. The honest interpretation is that at least some ball lightning is silicon combustion, and the rest, possibly, is something else.

How to Recognize Ball Lightning (If You Ever See It)

Statistically you will probably go your whole life without seeing ball lightning, which is fine, because it has killed people. If you do see it, the checklist is short and clear.

1. Conditions: active or just-finished thunderstorm, often with a nearby strike in the previous few seconds.
2. Appearance: a glowing, fuzzy-edged sphere, usually between the size of a tennis ball and a basketball, white to red in color.
3. Behavior: hovers or drifts horizontally at walking pace, frequently near conductive surfaces like pipes, antennas, or aircraft fuselages.
4. Don’t touch it. Witnesses who have been close enough to feel one report heat, hair standing on end, and electrical shock. The 1638 Widecombe event killed four people in one second.
5. Film it. Modern phones at 60fps in 4K would settle several open scientific arguments in a single clip. The atmospheric science community would like a word with the next person who manages it.

If you enjoy this kind of stubbornly unexplained weather phenomenon, we recently covered what petrichor actually is, including the geosmin chemistry and the champagne-bubble physics that flings rain smell into the air. We also wrote about the 1859 Carrington Event, the solar storm that set telegraph lines on fire and which, if it happened today, would knock out most of the power grid. For another well-documented oddity in the sky, see our piece on the recent surge in fireballs and meteorites, and for a strictly indoor phenomenon, our explainer on why songs get stuck in your head covers the only kind of earworm that is actually well understood. If you like good rabbit holes, the history of the Longcat meme is a different but equally satisfying one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is ball lightning real or just a myth?

Ball lightning is treated as a real physical phenomenon by mainstream atmospheric physics, and at least one event has been captured with a spectrograph in 2012 in Tibet. What is still disputed is the exact mechanism, and how many of the 10,000-plus reports describe the same underlying physics versus several different phenomena that happen to look alike.

Can ball lightning hurt you?

Yes. Historical accounts include deaths, burns, and damage to buildings. The most famous fatal case is physicist Georg Richmann in 1753, and the 1638 Widecombe church event killed four people and injured dozens. Close-range exposure has produced electrical shock and scorching even when the ball did not explode. If you see one, give it the same respect you would give a downed power line.

Why is there no clear video of ball lightning?

Ball lightning is rare, short-lived, and almost never anticipated. Modern phones are usually in pockets when it appears. There are a handful of low-quality videos that may or may not show ball lightning, plus the 2012 Tibetan plateau spectroscopic capture, but no clean, high-resolution video has yet been published. This is one reason the magnetophosphene hypothesis, which says some sightings are hallucinations, has not been dismissed.

What is the most likely scientific explanation right now?

The leading theory is the silicon vapor or aerogel model proposed by Abrahamson and Dinniss in 2000, which says lightning vaporizes silicon-rich soil into a fluffy network of nanoparticles that slowly burn in air. This is consistent with the 2012 Tibet spectrograph data. However, this theory does not account for sightings inside aircraft or near closed windows, so most researchers suspect ball lightning is several different phenomena lumped under one name.

How common is ball lightning?

Surveys in Russia, the United States, Germany, and France consistently find that between 3 and 10 percent of adults claim to have seen ball lightning at least once. That is comparable to the rate at which people report seeing tornadoes. The phenomenon is rare on any given storm, but cumulative human exposure to thunderstorms is large enough that millions of people are walking around with one story each.

Conclusion

Ball lightning is a scientific mystery too well-documented to dismiss and too poorly captured to solve. The silicon vapor theory is winning on the evidence, magnetophosphenes likely explain a fraction of reports, and the rest is genuinely open. For a phenomenon argued about since the Roman Empire, that is unusually honest progress. If you ever see one, do not touch it, and do film it. Atmospheric physics has been waiting for 2,000 years.

---