Talk:Lightning

"Photoelectric Effect in Air Explains Lightning Initiation and Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes" Mapsax (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

please feel free to work that into the "formation" section. If you want someone to proof before you make the edit, then post here. DecFinney (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@DecFinney: I really couldn't find a good place for it, epecially with both the article and the study being as technical as they are. The closest that I came was the end of the second paragraph of the "Establishing an electric field" section, but I still have my doubts. I do note that terrestrial gamma-ray flash and photoelectric effect have their own articles, but that's about as much confidence that I have at this point, sorry. Mapsax (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for trying.

IMO, whist the Wikipedia article is rather technical, it should probably be heading in the direction of less technical, rather than including very recent technical scientific studies. If an expert in the specific topic of initiation wanted to rework the text then perhaps it might get in, but I'm not in a position to do that. Hopefully if it sits here, someone might spot it that can do something with it. DecFinney (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

World's Longest Lightning Strike Crossed 515 Miles From Texas to Kansas, 31 July 2025. The strike occurred in 2017, but was only identified in July 2025. Peer reviewed journal article: A New WMO-Certified Single Megaflash Lightning Record Distance: 829 km (515 mi) occurring on 22 October 2017, published 31 July 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-25-0037.1 Pete Tillman (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

added to new megaflash subsection DecFinney (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this statement true? It seems to me that the release of energy is what causes both lightning and thunder. My understanding is that cultural convention only presumes lightning to cause thunder because we see light before we hear sound. 2601:282:2282:8310:68D2:F491:A01A:B4E6 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

And how would this clarify the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If clarity is simply digestibility, then it would not. On the other hand, another component of clarity is communicating a correct interpretation. For an encyclopedic format, I would personally weigh this more heavily and revise the statement. I'm curious what the consensus will be on this point. 75.70.27.128 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says "Lightning also causes thunder, a sound from the shock wave which develops as heated gases in the vicinity of the discharge experience a sudden increase in pressure. " What would you have changed here? And wouldn't it be even more philosophically correct to say that thunder is the *perception* of the sound due to...etc. And as a perception, it is inherently subjective and therefore cannot be said to have objective existence. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

One option is "Lightning also occurs with thunder..." I don't know how fluidly that will read for others.

To your point, subjectivity Vs. objectivity is indeed too deep to clarify anything here. The simpler notion of "A causes B" seems like fair game for critique. However, going back to the article, it does define lightning as encompassing more than just the flash. My original concern that people will incorrectly read this as "the flash causes thunder" could be a moot point. 2601:282:2282:8310:44D6:732E:90ED:7A1B (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@2601:282:2282:8310:44D6:732E:90ED:7A1B i think this is the key thing here. You were assuming lightning defined as the visible light emitted from the discharge? All the text leading up to the thunder text clearly discribes lightning as the discharge itself. Therefore, unless you are questioning the whole article's definition of lightning, I don't see that anything needs correcting. DecFinney (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed a photograph described as showing an upwards streamer during a lightning strike. I would recommend if future edits are made to introduce illustrations of upwards streamers that editors remain vigilant of a common misinterpretation.

Lightning flashes are obviously very bright, usually overexposing sensors in cameras unless an experienced lightning photographer is deliberately accounting for it. These flashes that are sometimes orders of magnitude brighter than the surroundings can create a rare ghost image on a photograph as the flash is able to reflect within in the lens assembly of some photography equipment. The 'ghost' effect can look a lot like an upwards streamer.

These 'ghost streamers' will always look identical to the main lightning strike when rotated through 180 degrees, and will normally occupy the opposite portion of the picture (bottom left if main strike is top right, bottom center if top center, etc.). Depending on the setup of the lenses/optics in the camera, a full 180 degree rotation of the image may perfectly match the 'streamer', but some setups may cause the streamer to appear slightly smaller or larger, and imperfect alignment of the lens and sensor may mean that the ghost is only roughly rather than exactly opposite the brightest portion of the image. However, a 180 degree rotated ghost reflection 'streamer' will always have the exact same shape and pattern of the true strike.

True upwards streamers generally occur very close to where a cloud-to-ground strike actually contacts the ground (one of several streamers will be incorporated into the strike itself), to the point where the photographer can usually capture the point of the contact. There are often several streamers, they are nearly always projecting from the highest points on the ground in the area of the strike in the image and are angled towards the main strike as they are themselves induced by the streamer of the main strike. Crucially, they will always have a different shape to the main strike, even when rotated through 180 degrees, and this is the only factor than can confirm a true streamer has been photographed. Tobin Dax (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tobin Dax thank you for the explanation and edit.

Im also noting here an online source which discusses the issue.

https://stormhighway.com/videoghost.php#:~:text=Videotaped%20lightning%20strikes%20(particularly%20cloud,as%20the%20main%20lightning%20channel. DecFinney (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The article is heavily 'current' but minimal on voltage. Voltage is the cause of the why a leader forms towards another region which has a different voltage potential. Once the circuit 'connects' thats when current will flow. Lightning is not just large current but voltages. Example: an aluminium smelter has exposed (to human touch) wire which feeds the arc electrodes. The amps involved are measured in high kilo-amp levels but the voltage of the smelting is about 2volts. A human can easily touch the exposed bus bars (2volts) but current will flow only if there is a low resistance zone. Skin and moist air cannot conduct lower voltages well but need very high potentials to initial a 'spark' and thus plasma formation (a leader). I don't know the numbers involved but working on an aluminium smelter years ago taught me a few things. High current is nothing special until you have an opportunity to either lower the resistance to voltage across a distance or have mega and kilo voltage different between two areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13436-25 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)