Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ball lightning (BL) has been observed for centuries. There are a large number of books, review articles, and original scientific papers devoted to different aspects of the BL phenomenon. Yet, the basic features of this phenomenon have never been explained by known physics. The main problem is the source which could power the dynamics of BL. We advocate the idea that dark matter (DM) in the form of axion quark nuggets (AQNs) made of standard model quarks and gluons (similar to the old idea of Witten’s strangelets) could internally generate the required power. The AQN model was invented long ago without any relation to BL physics. It was invented with a single motivation to explain the observed similarity, ΩDM∼Ωvisible, between visible and DM components. This relation represents a very generic feature of this framework, not sensitive to any parameters of the construction. However, with the same set of parameters being fixed long ago, this model is capable of addressing the key elements of the BL phenomenology, including the source of the energy powering the BL events. In particular, we argue that the visible size of BL, its typical life time, the frequency of its appearance, etc., are all consistent with the suggested proposal that BL represents a profound manifestation of DM physics represented by AQN objects. In this work, we limit ourselves to the analysis of the thunderstorm-related BL phenomena, though weather-unrelated BL events are also known to occur. We also formulate a number of specific possible tests which can refute or unambiguously substantiate this unorthodox proposal on the nature of BL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".