Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Ball Lightning as a profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ball lightning is powered by small antimatter fragments of axion quark nugget dark matter, with size, lifetime, power, and event rate all following from one baryon-charge parameter.

desk verdict A transparent, speculative mapping of ball lightning to AQN spallation fragments, with a concrete internal error in the lifetime check that breaks the paper's strongest consistency argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02653 v2 pith:6DY5R762 submitted 2025-02-04 hep-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEphysics.ao-ph

Ariel Zhitnitsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEphysics.ao-ph
keywords balllightningaxionquarknuggetsdarkmatterantimatterannihilationspallationelectrospheremeanfreepathunidentifiedaerialphenomena
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Ball lightning has resisted explanation because no conventional energy source can power a luminous, long-lived fireball that passes through glass. This paper claims that ball lightning is powered by small fragments of antimatter — secondary axion quark nuggets (AQNs) — that split off from larger dark-matter nuggets during thunderstorms. With the baryon charge of the fragment fixed at about $10^{15}$ (corresponding to the observed average energy of about $10^2$ kJ), the model derives the visible size of about 10 cm, the lifetime of about 7 s, the radiated power of about 10 kW, the 0.24 mm cavity left in glass, and the observed event rate from the dark-matter flux. The central identification is equation (17): 'secondary AQNs events ≡ Ball Lightning events.' If correct, ball lightning becomes a direct, local manifestation of dark matter, and some unexplained aerial phenomena would belong to the same family.

What carries the argument

The engine is the axion quark nugget: a lump of dense quark matter (from standard-model quarks and gluons) surrounded by an electrosphere of positrons and an axion domain wall. For an antimatter nugget, annihilation with ordinary baryons releases roughly 2 GeV per baryon; the surface emissivity from the electrosphere (non-thermal bremsstrahlung, proportional to $T^4\sqrt{T/m}$) fixes the internal temperature $T\approx6$ keV from energy balance. The load-bearing identification is that the visible ball-lightning size is not internal structure but the photon mean free path $\lambda\approx10$ cm in air at these photon energies, while the lifetime is set by the geometric annihilation rate through the effective electrosphere radius $R_{\rm eff}\approx10^{-6}$ cm. The same radiation physics, applied to silicon, produces the 0.24 mm glass-cavity scale.

What would settle it

A dedicated campaign that monitors a thunderstorm region with all-sky cameras, gamma-ray detectors, and infrasound arrays could settle the claim: the model predicts ball-lightning events at a rate tied to the local dark-matter flux and correlated with the unusual cosmic-ray-like bursts that the paper attributes to the same nuggets, and each event should be accompanied by hard X-ray and 0.511 MeV emission. Observing no such correlation, or a ball-lightning spectrum without those gamma signatures, would refute the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the AQN dark matter model already contains an engine that produces all the defining features of ball lightning: an antimatter quark nugget annihilating with air. The parent nuggets are macroscopic dark-matter objects with baryon charge $B\sim10^{25}$; under thunderstorm conditions, spallation breaks off a secondary fragment with $B_s\approx10^{15}$. Each annihilating baryon releases about 2 GeV, and the electrosphere's bremsstrahlung emission is the radiation source. The internal temperature of a stopped fragment is about 6 keV, and the photoelectric mean free path of these keV photons in air — about 10 cm — is identified as the observed visible size of ball lightning; the analogous mean free path in silicon, about 0.25 mm, is identified with the cavity a 20 cm ball leaves in glass. The annihilation rate set by the effective radius $R_{\rm eff}\approx10^{-6}$ cm gives a lifetime of about 6.7 s, and the dark-matter density sets the event rate. All these numbers follow from the single input $B_s\approx10^{15}$, with the other AQN parameters fixed by earlier cosmological and astrophysical studies.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that thunderstorms can split off antimatter fragments of baryon charge roughly $10^{15}$ from dark-matter nuggets; the paper explicitly takes an agnostic view of spallation, so if such fragments are never produced, the identification fails even if AQN dark matter exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single input parameter — the secondary nugget's baryon charge $B_s\approx10^{15}$ — fixes the average energy, visible size, lifetime, and radiated power of a typical ball lightning event, so those four observables are not independent in this model.
  • Ball lightning should preferentially appear in strongly ionized thunderstorm volumes: ionization raises the nugget's interaction cross section and is invoked as the trigger for spallation.
  • Because the event rate is proportional to the local dark-matter density, counting ball-lightning events becomes a direct probe of the dark-matter flux on Earth.
  • Some unexplained aerial phenomena, pseudo-meteorite events, and skyquakes are attributed to the same AQN objects at larger baryon charges, and should show correlated radar, infrasound, and material-melting signatures.
  • The correlation test follows: all-sky cameras monitoring the same area as cosmic-ray detectors should record ball lightning at a rate similar to the anomalous burst rate, and synchronized with those bursts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves the fragment size distribution unmodeled; one testable extension is to map the observed spread of ball-lightning energies (about 1 kJ to 1000 kJ) directly onto a distribution of $B_s$ values, effectively measuring spallation products from the outside.
  • Because the visible diameter is set by the photoelectric mean free path, simultaneous spectral and size measurements of a single event would probe the internal temperature: the predicted size is strongly sensitive to photon energy near 6 keV.
  • A relatively cheap, decisive search would look for the 0.511 MeV positron-annihilation line and hard X-rays accompanying ball lightning; the model predicts both, while most conventional plasma explanations predict neither.
  • If confirmed, the framework implies that historical ball-lightning reports, collected over centuries, become a passive dark-matter dataset whose rate fluctuations could in principle trace changes in the local dark-matter environment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that ball lightning (BL) events are manifestations of dark matter in the form of secondary axion quark nuggets (AQNs): antimatter fragments produced by spallation of larger parent AQNs during thunderstorms. The central identification is Eq. (17), "secondary AQNs events ≡ Ball Lightning events." The author argues that with a single fitted baryon charge B_AQNs ≈ 10^15 (chosen in Eq. (18) so that the annihilation energy matches the observed mean BL energy), the visible size (~10 cm), lifetime (~7 s), diameter, glass-passage cavity scale (~0.25 mm), spectral features, and event frequency all emerge consistently from the same AQN engine. The paper also extends the proposal to pseudo-meteorites, skyquakes, and UAP/UAV phenomena, and suggests tests via correlations with Telescope Array and Auger events, infrasound/DAS, and dual-frequency radar.

Significance. If the quantitative chain were sound, the proposal would be remarkable: it would connect a centuries-old terrestrial mystery to dark matter physics and make falsifiable predictions, including correlations between BL events and unusual cosmic-ray observatory events, and a plasma-frequency signature observable by radar. The paper also gives credit for the AQN framework's generic feature that Ω_DM ∼ Ω_visible arises without fine-tuning, and it does formulate concrete experiments. However, the present manuscript's load-bearing estimates are partly circular and partly internally inconsistent, so the significance is prospective rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (18)] The energy match is an input, not a prediction. Eq. (18) fixes B_AQNs ≈ 10^15 by requiring that 10^2 kJ equals B_AQNs times 2 GeV, i.e., the observed mean BL energy is used to choose the only free parameter of the model. Any subsequent agreement with the observed energy is therefore tautological. The paper acknowledges this in §3.8 by calling B_AQNs the "single input parameter," but the summary in §3.8 and the abstract present the energy agreement as a consistency check; this framing is misleading.
  2. [§2.3 and §4] The spallation mechanism is assumed, not derived, and the event-rate estimate depends on an unjustified 100% efficiency. Section 2.3 states "We just assume that the spallation occurs" and explicitly takes an "agnostic view" on spallation dynamics and the size distribution of fragments. Since identification (17) requires that parent AQNs produce B≈10^15 fragments in thunderstorm conditions, the existence of such fragments is a central axiom. Moreover, Eqs. (34)–(36) in §4 assume that every AQN hitting a thunderstorm area produces one secondary AQN; any smaller spallation efficiency reduces the predicted BL rate by the same factor, so the claimed consistency with the observed lower bound (32) is conditional on an arbitrarily chosen efficiency.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (16), (19), (41) and §3.4, Eq. (26)] There is an internal temperature inconsistency in the lifetime estimate. Eq. (41) defines R_eff from α Q_AQNs / R_eff ≈ T with T = 6 keV, using Q_AQNs ≈ 6×10^4 from Eq. (19). But Eq. (19) is obtained by rescaling Eq. (16), which is evaluated at T = 20 keV and scales as Q ∝ T^{5/4}. At the T = 6 keV used in Eq. (41), the self-consistent value is Q ≈ 1.5×10^4, giving R_eff ≈ 3.5×10^-7 cm rather than 10^-6 cm. Inserting this into Eqs. (24)–(26) yields τ ≈ 55 s, nearly an order of magnitude larger than the observed τ = 9^{+6}_{-4} s. The claimed energy–lifetime consistency in §3.4 is thus an artifact of mixing Q evaluated at 20 keV with a binding condition at 6 keV. This is a direct internal inconsistency, independent of external questions about spallation.
  4. [§3.5, footnote 5 and Eq. (28)] The glass-cavity size is fitted, not predicted. Footnote 5 explicitly states that the internal temperature is increased from 6 keV to 12 keV "to fit the observed value" of the 0.24 mm cavity. Because the framework does not compute the temperature change when the AQN crosses the air–glass interface, Eq. (28) is a post hoc adjustment. The qualitative statement that the scale should be much smaller in glass than in air is reasonable, but the numerical value 0.25 mm is not a derivation, and the paper's claim of a quantitative consistency check for item (ix) is not supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The first sentence of the abstract contains the typo "Ball lighting" instead of "Ball lightning"; the same typo appears in the title of Section 1 on the first page.
  2. [§1.1, Eq. (1)] The energy bounds are written as 10^{-0.8±0.2} kJ etc., which is unconventional; consider rewriting in the form E_min = 0.16_{-0.07}^{+0.08} kJ to improve readability, or explain the notation explicitly.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (21)] The identification of the visible size of BL with the mean free path of 6 keV photons depends sensitively on the internal temperature T = 6 keV from Eq. (40), which in turn depends on the phenomenological parameter κ and on the assumption that the fragment has stopped. A brief sensitivity estimate for λ with respect to κ would help the reader judge how robust the claimed ~10 cm scale is.
  4. [§3.4 and Appendix A] The notation for the secondary AQNs is inconsistent: the text uses "AQN_s" with subscript in some places and "AQNs" elsewhere. Please unify the notation and define it at first use.
  5. [§4, Eqs. (35)–(36)] The two estimates of the fraction F (≈10^-2 and ≈0.25×10^-2) differ by a factor of four, and the final rates are compared only to a lower bound on the observed BL rate. It would be useful to state explicitly that the model prediction could be up to two orders of magnitude above the lower bound and still be consistent, which limits the strength of the frequency test.
  6. [§5.3 and Appendix C] The UAP section is admittedly speculative, and the plasma-frequency estimate (52) relies on an assumed production of one ion per 20 keV photon; the text acknowledges this is conservative. Please state clearly in the main text that this is an order-of-magnitude estimate and that the radar-reflection claim depends on the ion density being sustained for the duration of the radar pulse.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

BL energy and glass-cavity scale are fitted to the data they purport to explain; the energy-lifetime consistency check is internally inconsistent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 3.1, Eq. (18)]
    "We just assume that the spallation occurs and we use a typical size (or what is the same, the baryon charge) of the secondary AQN s to fit the BL observations. This is the only input parameter to be used in the present work, while all other observables relevant for BL physics will be derived from this single input parameter. Therefore, we fix the amount of antimatter hidden in form of the AQNs accordingly: 10^2kJ ≈ 10^15GeV → BAQNs ≈ 10^15."

    The mean BL energy of about 10^2 kJ is not independently derived from the AQN model; it is the calibration that fixes the fragment baryon charge in Eq. (18). The abstract's claim that the model 'addresses the source of energy powering BL events' therefore reduces to the input: the fitted fragment is chosen to contain exactly the observed energy. Derived quantities that scale with BAQNs, such as the total power (27) and energy density (23), inherit this calibration and cannot independently confirm the energy claim. Size, lifetime, and event rate remain separate checks, so this is partial circularity rather than total.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (28) and footnote 5]
    "We account for this and related effects by increasing the effective temperature from 6 keV to 12 keV which appears in (28) to fit the observed value."

    The glass-cavity scale (28) is presented as a success of the framework, but the internal temperature entering the mean-free-path calculation is not derived: footnote 5 states it is increased from 6 keV to 12 keV specifically 'to fit the observed value' of the 0.24 mm cavity. Thus the numerical agreement of λSi with the observed hole size is manufactured by the fit, not predicted. The qualitative ordering λSi much smaller than the air mean free path may be robust, but the claimed quantitative match is by construction.

full rationale

Two load-bearing items reduce to fitted inputs. First, the fragment baryon charge (18) is calibrated to the observed mean BL energy, making the energy explanation self-definitional for the average event; the paper is candid that this is 'the only input parameter,' but this candor does not make the energy a prediction. Second, the glass-cavity scale (28) is force-fit by raising the effective temperature to 12 keV 'to fit the observed value' (footnote 5). The visible size (21), lifetime (26), and event rate (34)-(36) are in principle independent checks computed from photo-effect cross sections, air density, and DM flux, so this is not a fully circular paper. The spallation premise is explicitly assumed rather than derived ('We just assume that the spallation occurs'); that is a missing-support flag, not circularity. Separately, the flagship energy-lifetime consistency check suffers an internal temperature bookkeeping error: Eq. (19) derives QAQNs by rescaling Eq. (16) at T=20 keV, while Eq. (41) evaluates the binding condition at T≈6 keV; applying Eq. (16) at 6 keV lowers Q and Reff and lengthens τ by roughly an order of magnitude. That is a numerical inconsistency, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations; the AQN emissivity and spectrum formulas are prior same-author results with stated derivations. Overall, the central energy claim and one subsidiary scale are fit-to-data, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central chain is AQN existence, spallation, fragment annihilation, X-ray ionization, and visible ball. Only the last two steps are computed from standard cross sections; the first two are postulated or imported from the author's prior papers. The one free parameter fitted to BL energy (B_AQNs) plus the explicitly fitted glass temperature carry much of the explanatory load.

free parameters (3)
  • B_AQNs (secondary nugget baryon charge) = 10^15
    Set in Eq. (18) from the observed mean BL energy, 100 kJ ≈ 10^15 GeV; drives lifetime (26), power (27), and energy density (23).
  • Internal temperature in glass, T_glass = 12 keV
    Footnote 5 in Sect. 3.5: increased from 6 keV in air to 12 keV in glass explicitly 'to fit the observed value' of the 0.24 mm cavity.
  • Annihilation efficiency factor κ = 0.1 (range 0.1 to 1)
    Enters Eqs. (11)-(13) for internal temperature T ≈ 20 keV; chosen within a plausible range rather than measured, and affects most derived scales.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Existence and survival of antimatter axion quark nuggets formed by charge segregation during the QCD transition.
    Used throughout Sect. 2 and Table 1; the BL engine is this antimatter, so the identification fails if AQNs do not exist or do not survive.
  • ad hoc to paper Spallation of parent AQNs produces secondary fragments with B ≈ 10^15 in thunderstorm conditions.
    Section 2.3: 'We just assume that the spallation occurs' and 'take agnostic view on spallation dynamics.' No mechanism or size distribution is provided.
  • domain assumption Electrosphere emissivity and annihilation balance equations (11)-(13) from prior work apply at Earth-atmosphere densities and temperatures.
    Equations (11)-(13) and (37)-(40) are imported from refs. 36 and 38 by the same author; errors there propagate to temperature, spectrum, size, and lifetime.
  • domain assumption The visible ball size equals the mean free path of ~6 keV photons in air, while the glass cavity size equals the mean free path of ~12 keV photons in silicon.
    Section 3.3 Eq. (21) and Sect. 3.5 Eq. (28); this identification is the main bridge from X-ray emission to observed BL geometry.
invented entities (1)
  • Secondary AQN (spallation fragment of antimatter quark matter)
    purpose: Identified with ball lightning in Eq. (17); its annihilation with air supplies the observed energy, size, and lifetime.
    No independent evidence: its production mechanism is assumed and its baryon charge is fitted to BL energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ball Lightning as a profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DY5R762

@misc{pith2026250202653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ball Lightning as a profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DY5R762}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02653}
}
abstract

Ball lighting (BL) has been observed for centuries. There are large number of books, review articles, and original scientific papers devoted to different aspects of 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 the BL. We advocate an idea that the dark matter (DM) in form of the axion quark nuggets (AQN) made of standard model quarks and gluons (similar to the old idea of the Witten's strangelets) could internally generate the required power. The AQN model was invented long ago without any relation to the BL physics. It was invented with a single motivation to explain the observed similarity $\Omega_{\rm DM}\sim \Omega_{\rm visible}$ 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 to address 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 appearance, etc are all consistent with suggested proposal when BL represents a profound manifestation of the DM physics represented by the AQN objects. We also argue that some of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) might be closely related to BL events, and therefore also represent profound manifestations of the DM physics within AQN framework. We also formulate a number of specific possible tests which can refute or unambiguously substantiate this unorthodox proposal on nature of BL and UAP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AQN-structure (not in scale), adopted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_33.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unidentified falling objects in the LHC as dark matter signals

    hep-ph 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new mechanism linking LHC UFOs to axion quark nugget dark matter is proposed, predicting detectable correlated UFO bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Boerner, Ball Lightning, Springer Cham, 2019, pp

    H. Boerner, Ball Lightning, Springer Cham, 2019, pp. 1–205. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20783-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20783-0 2019

  2. [2]

    Smirnov, Physics of ball lightning, Physics Reports 224 (4) (1993) 151–236

    B. Smirnov, Physics of ball lightning, Physics Reports 224 (4) (1993) 151–236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-1573(93)90121-S . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037015739390121S

    arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    M. L. Shmatov, K. D. Stephan, Advances in ball lightning research, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 195 (2019) 105115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.105115. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682619303840

    work page arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman, Ball lightning, bead lightning, and other unusual discharges, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 656?674. URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/lightning/ball-lightning-bead-lightning-and-other-unusual-discharges/ 13E6CD33A72BCD71D7FCE78894FB3934

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    A. G. Keul, A brief history of ball lightning observations by scientists and trained professionals, History of Geo- and Space Sciences 12 (1) (2021) 43–56. doi:10.5194/hgss-12-43-2021 . URL https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/12/43/2021/

    work page doi:10.5194/hgss-12-43-2021 2021

  6. [6]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, ‘Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as baryonic colour superconductor, JCAP10 (2003) 010. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0202161, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2003/10/010. 27

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2003/10/010 2003

  7. [7]

    Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets

    A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (18) (2021) 2130017. arXiv:2105.08719, doi:10.1142/S0217732321300172

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    K. D. Stephan, Could Ball Lightning Be Magnetic Monopoles? (8 2024). arXiv:2408.10289

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Ralston, Is Ball Lightning a Signal of Magnetic Monopoles? (10 2024). arXiv:2411.00240

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    V. L. Bychkov, A. I. Nikitin, I. P. Ivanenko, T. F. Nikitina, A. M. Velichko, I. A. Nosikov, Ball lightning passage through a glass without breaking it, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 150-151 (2016) 69–76. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2016.10.018....

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    J. Cen, P. Yuan, S. Xue, Observation of the optical and spectral characteristics of ball lightning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 035001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    T. An, P. Yuan, J. Cen, S. Xue, R. Wan, H. Deng, G. Liu, X. Wang, Temperature of apparent natural ball lightning obtained by examination of the spectra, Physics of Plasmas 29 (11) (2022) 113503. arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/ pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0098329/16630169/113...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    K. D. Stephan, R. Krajcik, R. J. Martin, Fluorescence caused by ionizing radiation from ball lightning: Observation and quantitative analysis, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 148 (2016) 32–38. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jastp.2016.08.005. URL https://w...

    2016

  6. [14]

    K. D. Stephan, New observation and analysis of window damage as evidence for energy and power content of ball lightning, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 261 (2024) 106300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2024. 106300. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Tulin, H.-B

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1–57. arXiv: 1705.02358, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 272–285. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    Farhi, R

    E. Farhi, R. L. Jaffe, Strange matter, Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 2379–2390. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2379

    1984 doi

  10. [18]

    De Rujula, S

    A. De Rujula, S. L. Glashow, Nuclearites - A novel form of cosmic radiation, Nature312 (1984) 734–737. doi:10.1038/ 312734a0

    1984

  11. [19]

    HOUSE, Is ball lightning a nuclear phenomenon ?, Nature

    M.ALTSCHULER, L. HOUSE, Is ball lightning a nuclear phenomenon ?, Nature. 228 (1970) 545. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/228545a0

    1970 doi

  12. [20]

    Whitehead, Is ball lightning caused by antimatter meteorities?, Nature

    D.Ashby, C. Whitehead, Is ball lightning caused by antimatter meteorities?, Nature. 230 (1971) 180. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/230180a0

    1971 doi

  13. [21]

    Lawson, X

    K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, A. Zhitnitsky, Gravitationally trapped axions on the Earth, Phys. Rev. D 100 (4) (2019) 043531. arXiv:1905.00022, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043531

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liang, A

    X. Liang, A. Zhitnitsky, Axion field and the quark nugget’s formation at the QCD phase transition, Phys. Rev. D94 (8) (2016) 083502. arXiv:1606.00435, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083502

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological C P -odd axion field as the coherent Berry’s phase of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D96 (6) (2017) 063514. arXiv:1702.04354, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063514

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological axion and a quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Rev. D97 (4) (2018) 043008. arXiv:1711.06271, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043008

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. Ge, K. Lawson, A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nugget dark matter model: Size distribution and survival pattern, Phys. Rev. D 99 (11) (2019) 116017. arXiv:1903.05090, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.116017

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhitnitsky, Cold dark matter as compact composite objects, Phys

    A. Zhitnitsky, Cold dark matter as compact composite objects, Phys. Rev. D74 (4) (2006) 043515. arXiv:astro-ph/ 0603064, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043515

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    V. V. Flambaum, A. R. Zhitnitsky, Primordial Lithium Puzzle and the Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter Model, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2) (2019) 023517. arXiv:1811.01965, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023517

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Singh Sidhu, R

    J. Singh Sidhu, R. J. Scherrer, G. Starkman, Antimatter as Macroscopic Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135574. arXiv:2006.01200, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135574

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    O. P. Santill´ an, A. Morano, Neutrino emission and initial evolution of axionic quark nuggets, Phys. Rev. D 104 (8) (2021) 083530. arXiv:2011.06747, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083530

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lawson, A

    K. Lawson, A. R. Zhitnitsky, The 21 cm absorption line and the axion quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Dark Univ. 24 (2019) 100295. arXiv:1804.07340, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100295

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Budker, V

    D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, A. Zhitnitsky, Infrasonic, acoustic and seismic waves produced by the Axion Quark Nuggets, Symmetry 14 (2022) 459. arXiv:2003.07363, doi:10.3390/sym14030459

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. M. Jacobs, G. D. Starkman, B. W. Lynn, Macro Dark Matter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450 (4) (2015) 3418–3430. arXiv:1410.2236, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv774

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, T. Sch¨ afer, Color superconductivity in dense quark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (2008) 1455–1515. arXiv:0709.4635, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1455

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. Ge, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, A. Zhitnitsky, Radio impulsive events in quiet solar corona and Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123021. arXiv:2009.00004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123021

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and axion quark nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and axion quark nuggets, J. Phys. G 49 (10) (2022) 105201. arXiv: 2203.08160, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac8569

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. M. Forbes, A. R. Zhitnitsky, WMAP haze: Directly observing dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D78 (8) (2008) 083505. arXiv:0802.3830, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083505. 28

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Telescope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Telescope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J. Phys. G 48 (6) (2021) 065201. arXiv:2008.04325, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abd457

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    quark nuclei

    M. M. Forbes, K. Lawson, A. R. Zhitnitsky, Electrosphere of macroscopic “quark nuclei”: A source for diffuse MeV emissions from dark matter, Phys. Rev. D82 (8) (2010) 083510. arXiv:0910.4541, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083510

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Tanabashi, Review of particle physics, Phys

    M. Tanabashi, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Berestetskii, E

    V. Berestetskii, E. Lifshitz, L. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics: Volume 4, Course of theoretical physics, Elsevier Science, 1982. URL https://books.google.ca/books?id=URL5NKX8vbAC

    1982

  33. [41]

    A. V. Gurevich, K. P. Zybin, Runaway breakdown and electric discharges in thunderstorms, Physics-Uspekhi 44 (11) (2001) 1119–1140. doi:10.1070/pu2001v044n11abeh000939. URL https://doi.org/10.1070%2Fpu2001v044n11abeh000939

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    K. D. Stephan, R. Sonnenfeld, A. G. Keul, First comparisons of ball-lightning report website data with lightning-location- network data, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 240 (2022) 105953. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jastp.2022.105953. URL https://www.sc...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Gurevich, K

    A. Gurevich, K. Zybin, High energy cosmic ray particles and the most powerful new type discharges in thunderstorm atmosphere, Phys. Lett. A 329 (2004) 341–347. arXiv:hep-ex/0403050, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2004.06.094

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abbasi, et al., The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys

    R. Abbasi, et al., The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys. Lett. A 381 (32) (2017) 2565–2572. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2017.06.022

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high energy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1181 (2019) 012067

    T. Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high energy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1181 (2019) 012067. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1181/1/012067. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-6596%2F1181%2F1%2F012067

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    J. R. Dwyer, M. A. Uman, The physics of lightning, Phys. Rep. 534 (4) (2014) 147 – 241, the Physics of Lightning. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2013.09.004. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037015731300375X

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    K. H. Knuth, P. Ailleris, H. A. Agrama, E. Ansbro, T. Cai, T. Canuti, M. C. Cifone, W. B. C. Jr., F. Courtade, R. Dolan, L. Domine, L. Dini, B. Friscourt, R. Graves, R. F. Haines, R. Hoffman, H. Kayal, S. Little, G. P. Nolan, R. Powell, M. Rodeghier, E. Russo, P. Skafish, E. S...

    2025

  40. [48]

    W. A. Watters, A. Loeb, F. Laukien, R. Cloete, A. Delacroix, S. Dobroshinsky, B. Horvath, E. Kelderman, S. Little, E. Masson, A. Mead, M. Randall, F. Schultz, M. Szenher, F. Vervelidou, A. White, A. Ahlstr¨ om, C. Cleland, S. Dockal, N. Donahue, M. Elowitz, C. Ezell, A. Gerszn...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Domine, A

    L. Domine, A. Biswas, R. Cloete, A. Delacroix, A. Fedorenko, L. Jacaruso, E. Kelderman, E. Keto, S. Little, A. Loeb, E. Masson, M. Prior, F. Schultz, M. Szenher, W. A. Watters, A. White, Commissioning an all-sky infrared camera array for detection of airborne objects, Sensors ...

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Szydagis, K

    M. Szydagis, K. H. Knuth, B. W. Kugielsky, C. Levy, Initial Results From the First Field Expedition of UAPx to Study Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (12 2023). arXiv:2312.00558

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. Ol’khovatov, Some comments on events associated with falling terrestrial rocks and iron from the sky, arXiv e-prints (2020) arXiv:2012.00686arXiv:2012.00686, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2012.00686

    2020 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    K. H. Knuth, R. M. Powell, P. A. Reali, Estimating flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles, Entropy 21 (10) (2019). doi:10.3390/e21100939. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Abreu, et al., Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 395

    P. Abreu, et al., Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 395. doi:10.22323/1.395.0395

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Colalillo, The observation of lightning-related events with the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, in: European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    R. Colalillo, The observation of lightning-related events with the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, in: European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 197 of European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 2019, p. 03003. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201919703003

    2019

  47. [55]

    Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoS ICRC2017 (2017) 314

    R. Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoS ICRC2017 (2017) 314. doi:10.22323/1.301.0314

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Salucci, N

    P. Salucci, N. Turini, C. Di Paolo, Paradigms and Scenarios for the Dark Matter Phenomenon, Universe 6 (8) (2020) 118. arXiv:2008.04052, doi:10.1142/9789811233913_0075

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zhitnitsky, Structure formation paradigm and axion quark nugget dark matter model, Phys

    A. Zhitnitsky, Structure formation paradigm and axion quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023) 101217. arXiv:2302.00010, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101217

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R. C. Henry, J. Murthy, J. Overduin, J. Tyler, THE MYSTERY OF THE COSMIC DIFFUSE ULTRA VIOLET BACK- GROUND RADIATION, The Astrophysical Journal 798 (1) (2014) 14. doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/14. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/14 29

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    M. S. Akshaya, J. Murthy, S. Ravichandran, R. C. Henry, J. Overduin, The diffuse radiation field at high galactic latitudes, The Astrophysical Journal 858 (2) (2018) 101. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9. URL https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabcb9

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    M. S. Akshaya, J. Murthy, S. Ravichandran, R. C. Henry, J. Overduin, Components of the diffuse ultraviolet radiation at high latitudes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489 (1) (2019) 1120–1126. arXiv:1908.02260, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2186

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhitnitsky, The mysterious diffuse UV radiation and axion quark nugget dark matter model, Phys

    A. Zhitnitsky, The mysterious diffuse UV radiation and axion quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Lett. B 828 (2022) 137015. arXiv:2110.05489, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137015

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zhitnitsky, Solar Extreme UV radiation and quark nugget dark matter model, JCAP10 (2017) 050

    A. Zhitnitsky, Solar Extreme UV radiation and quark nugget dark matter model, JCAP10 (2017) 050. arXiv:1707.03400, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/050

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    N. Raza, L. van Waerbeke, A. Zhitnitsky, Solar corona heating by axion quark nugget dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 98 (10) (2018) 103527. arXiv:1805.01897, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103527

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    E. N. Parker, Nanoflares and the solar X-ray corona, Astrophys. J.330 (1988) 474–479. doi:10.1086/166485

    1988 doi

  57. [65]

    P. W. Gorham, et al., Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (7) (2016) 071101. arXiv:1603.05218, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071101

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    P. W. Gorham, et al., Observation of an Unusual Upward-going Cosmic-ray-like Event in the Third Flight of ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (16) (2018) 161102. arXiv:1803.05088, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161102

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Liang, A

    X. Liang, A. Zhitnitsky, ANITA anomalous events and axion quark nuggets, Phys. Rev. D 106 (6) (2022) 063022. arXiv: 2105.01668, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063022

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Zioutas, A

    K. Zioutas, A. Argiriou, H. Fischer, S. Hofmann, M. Maroudas, A. Pappa, Y. Semertzidis, Stratospheric temperature anomalies as imprints from the dark universe, Physics of the Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100497. doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020. 100497. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dark....

    2020

  61. [69]

    Argiriou, et al., Novel Dark Matter Signatures, 2025

    A. Argiriou, et al., Novel Dark Matter Signatures, 2025. arXiv:2501.15498, doi:10.22323/1.474.0035

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Zhitnitsky, M

    A. Zhitnitsky, M. Maroudas, Mysterious anomalies in Earth’s atmosphere and strongly interacting Dark Matter, Symmetry 17 (2025) 79. arXiv:2405.04635, doi:10.3390/sym17010079. 30

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.