Scientists find near-definitive list for rare earthquake lights

In summary, scientists have found records of rare 'earthquake lights' that can manifest themselves as floating balls of light, bluish columns shooting up out of the Earth, or reverse lightning reaching up into the sky from the ground. These phenomena are tied to a specific type of temblor in areas where certain geological formations occur. Although the mechanism by which these lights are produced has not yet been reproduced in the laboratory, the study shows that the spectrum of a glowing sphere that contains emission lines from silicon, iron, and calcium is consistent with this phenomenon.
  • #1
19,412
9,961
Scientists find near-definitive list for rare "earthquake lights"

Scientists find records of rare 'earthquake lights'
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/02/earthquake-lights-rare-phenomenon/4255097/

They've been mistaken for UFOs or dismissed as hallucinations. Now geologists have collected a near-definitive list of a rare but fascinating phenomenon — earthquake lights.

Certain types of earthquakes in certain areas can set off blazes of light seconds — sometimes days — ahead of the actual quake. These can manifest themselves as floating balls of light, bluish columns shooting up out of the Earth and even reverse lightning, reaching up into the sky from the ground.

A study out Thursday in the journal Seismological Research Letters shows such quakes are tied to a specific type of temblor in areas where certain geological formations occur.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
"These can manifest themselves as floating balls of light"
Reminded me of ball lightning but the formation hypotheses seem different...
 
  • #3
This is fascinating...

"'When a powerful seismic wave runs through the ground and hits a layer of such rocks, it compresses the rocks with great pressure and speed, creating conditions under which large amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are generated,' he said. These charges can travel together, reaching what's called a plasma state, which can burst out and shoot up into the air."

If the formation hypothesis is correct, then do you think it would be possible to recreate this phenomenon on a smaller scale? The Caltech Shockwave Lab comes to mind.
 
  • #4
jbrussell93 said:
This is fascinating...

"'When a powerful seismic wave runs through the ground and hits a layer of such rocks, it compresses the rocks with great pressure and speed, creating conditions under which large amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are generated,' he said. These charges can travel together, reaching what's called a plasma state, which can burst out and shoot up into the air."

If the formation hypothesis is correct, then do you think it would be possible to recreate this phenomenon on a smaller scale? The Caltech Shockwave Lab comes to mind.

Don't know about earthquake lights but it was done with ball lightning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrR8B-mLCS8
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/08/ball-lightning-captured-lab-plasma
 
  • #5
Enigman said:
Don't know about earthquake lights but it was done with ball lightning...

Well, maybe. No one had been able to produce anything in the lab that exhibits all of the characteristics associated with ball lightning. Most notably, everything seen in the lab is either extremely short lived or requires some form of external energy.

With respect to earthquake lights, I am reminded of this comment from a seismologist.

When scientists are skeptical about the existence of reported phenomena, they often try to cover up under a layer of humor. Such an attempt by one seismologist led him to remark that "the chapter on earthquake lights is the darkest in seismology."

No longer does this subject lurk in the shadows of scientific skepticism. Among the more illuminating observations that have brought this topic out into the scientific light of day are those acquired by a Japanese dentist. He managed to photograph earthquake lights occurring during a ten-year earthquake swarm starting in 1965
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=416970&postcount=4

I was also amused by this comment
They've been mistaken for UFOs

By definition they were UFOs. :biggrin:
 
  • #7
The silicon nanoparticle hypothesis to explain Ball Lightning (BL) was proposed in 2000 by John Abrahamson and James Dinniss, and published in Letters to Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6769/full/403519a0.html

Their claim was BL would result when lightning from a cloud strikes the ground causing some silica contained in the soil to be vaporized. Somehow the oxygen would split from the silicon dioxide, resulting in pure silicon vapor. While cooling this silicon would condense into an aerosol and then recombine with the oxygen, causing it to glow. This process has not yet been reproduced in the laboratory, as far as I know.

The recent analysis by the Chinese team shows the spectrum of a glowing sphere that contains emission lines from silicon, iron, and calcium. These are elements expected to be found in soil. Although this mechanism may describe one type of BL, it cannot account for all types of BL. Observations of BL appear within buildings after passing through closed doors and closed glass windows, and within metal aircraft, having both entered and exited without causing damage. Since silicon nanoparticle aerosol cannot pass through solid barriers, the theory does not explain all BL formations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Bobbywhy said:
Since silicon nanoparticle aerosol cannot pass through solid barriers, the theory does not explain all BL formations.

What sort of particles can pass through solid barriers, yet remain organized in a glowing sphere?
 
  • #9
Bobbywhy said:
Since our Forum Discussion Guidelines do not allow speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science, and since there is no “generally-accepted science” that describes Ball Lightning, I cannot answer your question here. I would, however, consider a Personal Message exchange on the subject.

Pssst...Are you talking about the small black hole hypothesis thingy?
And could you refer me to the reports where BL has been said to pass through solid barriers? (I am drawing a blank on google...)
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I would enjoy and could gain immensely from a free and open discussion of Ball Lightning (BL).

My meager attempt to explain BL was posted here on PF five years ago. I invite you to read it. See: “Ball Lightning Debunk, New Proposal” by Bobbywhy, dated 17 Feb 2009 at:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293120&highlight=ball+lightning
The thread was quickly locked by our moderator because it was a personal theory.

Since our Forum Discussion Guidelines do not allow “speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science”, and since there is no “generally-accepted science” that describes Ball Lightning, I cannot answer your question here.

If we look at the Wikipedia page for BL we find this list:

Possible scientific explanations:
Electrically charged solid-core model, Microwave cavity hypothesis, Soliton hypothesis
Vaporized silicon hypothesis, Hydrodynamic vortex ring antisymmetry, Nanobattery hypothesis, Black hole hypothesis, Buoyant plasma hypothesis, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, Spinning plasma toroid (ring), Rydberg matter concept”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

If I were to simple rearrange these in the order of what I believe is the most likely to least likely scientific explanation, then that would be in violation of the PF rule regarding personal theories. I invite anyone here to use our Personal Message system if she would like to search with me for a better understanding of BL.

Bobbywhy
 
  • #11
Bobbywhy said:
If I were to simple rearrange these in the order of what I believe is the most likely to least likely scientific explanation, then that would be in violation of the PF rule regarding personal theories.

Oh, I don't think so. Some of those are quite reasonable scientific theories.
 
  • #12
Here is a new report of research supporting the idea of "earthquake lights" as noted in the OP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...1a1a9c-a4c7-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

Of particular interest to physics students should be the discovery of unexpected electrical activity generated by a humble box of kitchen flour.

"The results were presented at the American Physical Society’s March Meeting in Denver on Thursday by Rutgers University biomedical engineer Troy Shinbrot. His lab has created a miniature model of earthquake-like jamming and cracking, and has found huge voltage jumps that result from the shifting of granular material used to mimic the earth.

He used tanks filled with different types of grains, from kitchen flour to glass beads, and moved them relative to one another in a quick start-and-stop motion to create cracks. A non-contact voltage probe focused on measuring a certain crack. The voltages differed from material to material, but the overall pattern remained the same. When the grains split open, they measured a positive voltage spike, and when the split closed, a negative spike.

Sometimes the voltage ­changes were as high as hundreds of volts — but as of now, the researchers cannot explain why."
 

1. What are earthquake lights?

Earthquake lights are luminous phenomena that are sometimes observed in the sky before, during, or after an earthquake. They can take on various forms, such as glowing orbs, flashes of light, or streaks in the sky.

2. How do scientists study earthquake lights?

Scientists use a variety of methods to study earthquake lights, including field observations, lab experiments, and satellite imagery. They also collect reports from eyewitnesses and analyze seismic data to determine if there is a correlation between earthquakes and these luminous events.

3. What is the significance of this "near-definitive list" of earthquake lights?

This list provides a comprehensive and systematic catalog of reported earthquake lights, which can help scientists better understand the underlying mechanisms and characteristics of these phenomena. It also serves as a valuable resource for future research and study.

4. Are earthquake lights a reliable predictor of earthquakes?

No, earthquake lights have not been scientifically proven to be a reliable predictor of earthquakes. While there have been numerous reports of earthquake lights preceding earthquakes, there is currently no conclusive evidence that links the two phenomena.

5. Can earthquake lights be explained by natural or man-made causes?

While there are many theories about the causes of earthquake lights, scientists have not yet reached a definitive conclusion. Some suggest that they could be caused by piezoelectricity, while others propose more complex mechanisms involving geological and atmospheric processes. More research is needed to fully understand the origins of earthquake lights.

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
57K
Replies
7
Views
29K
  • STEM Career Guidance
3
Replies
80
Views
64K
Back
Top