New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Do cosmic rays cause lightning?

Joseph Dwyer, a professor of physics and space sciences at the Florida Institute of Technology, has been wondering the same thing.

Your question lies at the core of one of science's great mysteries: What causes lightning? Decades of electric field measurements made inside thunderstorms have failed to find large enough electric fields to cause a spark, even when the effects of precipitation are taken into account. Since we know that lightning does occur—in fact, it strikes the earth about four million times a day—we must be missing something in our understanding.

A mechanism proposed by Russian physicist Alex V. Gurevich of the Lebedev Physical Institute and his collaborators suggest that the movement of large showers of energetic particles produced by high-energy cosmic rays—which originate from exploding stars halfway across the galaxy—might provide a conductive path that initiates lightning. There are indeed types of particle detectors called spark chambers that exploit this principle. In a spark chamber, a very large voltage is applied across a small gap filled with a gas. The resulting electric field is large enough to cause the gap to break down (or spark), so long as there exist some free electrons to get the whole process going. Think of loose rocks ready to fall down the side of a mountain. In order to get an avalanche going, all that is needed is the first moving rock. Similarly, when a charged particle (the first rock) passes through the gap, the ionization it leaves behind will cause a spark, which more or less follows the particle's path. For these kinds of detectors, the location of the spark can be used to identify when and where the charged particle went through.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On the other hand, the case of thunderstorms and lightning is slightly different. Unlike the spark chamber, the electric fields inside the thunderstorm do not appear to be big enough to initiate a spark, so in order for Gurevich's mechanism to do the job, he had to suppose that there were many, many charged particles passing through the storm at once. Because cosmic-ray air showers do not produce enough particles by themselves, Gurevich postulated that the thunderstorm gave the cosmic-ray shower a boost by increasing the number of energetic electrons through an exotic process called "runaway breakdown."

Runaway breakdown occurs when the drag force that electrons experience moving through air is less than the electric force acting upon them. In such cases, the electrons will "run away," gaining very large amounts of energy. As the runaway electrons collide with air molecules, they generate other runaway electrons plus x-rays and gamma rays, resulting in an avalanche of high-energy particles. Instead of rocks in a landslide, think of the runaway electrons as shrapnel tearing up a path through the storm cloud. According to the Gurevich model, this conductive path is what causes lightning.

Runaway breakdown can create large amounts of high-energy electrons, as well as x-rays and gamma rays. Interestingly, we know that runaway breakdown works for the low electric fields already seen inside thunderstorms. We also know that it does sometimes happen right before lightning, because we can see big bursts of x-rays and gamma rays shooting out of thunderstorms. In fact, these gamma rays are so energetic and so bright that they have been observed from outer space, 600 kilometers (373 miles) above Earth's surface.

So, does all this add up to cosmic rays as the cause of lightning? No one can be sure at present.

Some researchers, including myself, have voiced skepticism about this mechanism, due to a few technical problems. For example, for lightning to propagate it must form a hot, conductive channel. This channel acts like a metal wire, allowing very big electrical currents to flow. It is difficult to understand how a large, diffuse discharge produced by an air shower and runaway breakdown could result in such a hot channel measuring just a few centimeters across. Alternative explanations of lightning initiation have been proposed, including some that involve a conventional breakdown from water and ice particles, as well as others that involve differing forms of runaway breakdown without cosmic rays. Scientists are busy working on models and experiments to test the validity of all these ideas.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe