just in case you missed it, all matter carrys a charge, and all space(and matter) has energy radiating through it, making the universe an energy gradient.
> The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now.
> This magazine…
I think saying "This magazine…" as if the flaws of Quanta are well understood and agreed may need additional elaboration. If you mean that experts have known this—well, the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the latest research itself.
As a child I saw an acted segment about ball lightning in childrens‘ TV, following a person around the house, and had nightmares for a long time afterwards. The thing is spooky as hell.
That 7 second video of a small rocket shot into a cloud to induce a lightning strike (about half way down the article) is incredible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJIiX9_c_M
Any ideas why the lightning strike appears mostly green (and momentarily purple and orange)?
I'm imagining it's something related to the copper wire.
I always wanted to replicate this with a helium balloon and a long, wet string coated with copper filings.
Maybe just salt water and skip the filings?
You'd probably need a very large balloon to overcome the weight of the string
Copper emits a green-blue light in the flame test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwsexjcROH4
Tl;dr lightings may be caused by electrons/positrons from outer space hitting a cloud and initiating an "avalanche" of electrons.
Cosmic rays are mostly protons, not electrons or positrons. You're mixing up to separate theories in the article.
Much of the time they occur when two weather fronts of different temperatures collide with each other.
just in case you missed it, all matter carrys a charge, and all space(and matter) has energy radiating through it, making the universe an energy gradient.
sometimes you can see it happening.
So, nothing new?
The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now.
This magazine…
> So, nothing new?
> The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now.
> This magazine…
I think saying "This magazine…" as if the flaws of Quanta are well understood and agreed may need additional elaboration. If you mean that experts have known this—well, the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the latest research itself.
Soooo you are telling me that we still haven't fully understood something as fundamental as lightning and it's still an active area of research...
Never mind this kind of lightning, it gets really interesting when we start to look at ball lightning, which is very real but rarely sighted.
As a child I saw an acted segment about ball lightning in childrens‘ TV, following a person around the house, and had nightmares for a long time afterwards. The thing is spooky as hell.
Not to be flip, but, depending on what "fully" means, we haven't fully understood much of anything about the real world.
It is cool that something so seemingly ordinary is extraordinary.