There are now probably more than 200 different theories of BL, but so far there is no consensus on the validity of any of them. In fact, most scientists think that none of these theoretical models is capable of explaining the physical nature of these objects. This is somewhat surprising concerning the effort that has gone into these models, but as Stenhoff explains in his book, most theories are critically flawed. He states that they simply do not describe the observational evidence: some predict behavior that has never been observed, whereas others are at odds with well-documented behavior by these objects. Some focus only on a few reports and ignore the evidence from other observations. It appears that physicists are also prone to do some cherry-picking when it comes to reports on BL.
- Endean, G. (1997) Development of the radiation bubble model of ball lightning. Journal of Meteorology 22:98–105Google Scholar
- Jennison, R. C. (1990) Relativistic phase-locked cavity model of ball lightning. Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory: Proceedings 2:359Google Scholar
- Lowke, J. J. et al (2012) Birth of ball lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117Google Scholar
- Ranada, A. F. and Soler, M. and Trueba, J. L. (2000) Ball lightning as a force-free magnetic knot. Physical Review E 62:7181Google Scholar
- Stephan, K. D. (2016) Extension of Relativistic-Microwave Theory of Ball Lightning Including Long-Term Losses and Stability. arXiv preprint arXix:1608.00450Google Scholar