-2
$\begingroup$

I want to know what is the opposite of lightning. To give you some background, it has to be something that makes up a large aspect of the universe and cannot be anything in this list:

space, time, light, acid/acidity, metal, plant, ice, sound, air, fire, earth/minerals, water, mind, body/organics in particular the aspects that are attributed to them like speed, strength, sight etc

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Shadowzee, L.Dutch Jun 18 at 8:04

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You added the tag science-based... Scientifically speaking "lightning" is the rapid movement of electrons through air and the opposite of it is air without lightning. You also added the classical-elements tag, but classical elements have nothing at all to do with science. Please also have a look at the help center, especially How to Ask to see how questions should be formulated to be answerable and helpful. $\endgroup$ – Elmy Jun 18 at 7:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you explain to us what would qualify it as the opposite? I am assuming your going for a ying and yang type thing where every element has an opposite element which it needs to co-exist with. A list of the different aspects would go a long way in establishing a good pattern, but I believe this will end up completely at your discretion instead of through any logical reasoning. ( based off what you have, I could also recommend you consider Plasma ). Either way I am VTC as POB until you can provide us with additional information or examples. $\endgroup$ – Shadowzee Jun 18 at 7:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Removing the body of your question after you have accepted an answer is seen as vandalizing content, and it is definitely not appreciated. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch Jun 18 at 9:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Darkning? I'm having trouble understanding how you can have the opposite of a noun... $\endgroup$ – colmde Jun 18 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's gninthgil. $\endgroup$ – Renan Jun 18 at 13:24
4
$\begingroup$

Lightning is an electrical discharge caused by the difference in potential (voltage) exceeding the break down voltage of the atmosphere that separates to two points.

The difference in potential is caused by the accumulation of positive or negative charges on either or both points — one being positive and the other negative.

So, literally the opposite of lightning is no the condition of there being no difference in potential between two points. And, that pretty much looks like any day without lightning.

But, I suspect that is an unfulfilling answer to you. So, getting less literal. The opposite of lightning might be the accumulation of positrons — which are anti-matter equivalents of the electron. They carry a positive charge, instead of a negative charge. Since they are charge carriers, a difference of potential is established that can result in the atmosphere breaking down — just like lightning.

Except, the positrons colliding with matter annihilate an equal mass of matter. So positron electron collisions result in zero mass and some radiation. In generally accepted theory, positron atom collisions result in nothing except a photon emission. But, if you accept that idea that that idea is always right, then you could speculate that the atom became .... unstable matter as a tiny portion of an atoms sub atomic composition is annihilated. Assuming you are looking for something interesting for your story, pretend that gases caught in the discharge start decaying. Trees and goats struck by the opposite of lightning blow apart and their atoms start to decay atomically, becoming radioactive while they breakdown into subatomic junk

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I’d argue that the literal opposite of lightning is lightning in the opposite direction (IE positive and negative charges flipped). The absence of lightning or presence of anti-lightning are both pretty good contenders for the title too. BTW: I think even with regular physics anti-lightning is plenty frightening (hah) because you have to ask :*where did those charges build up*? $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Jun 18 at 7:55
  • $\begingroup$ "you could speculate that the atom became .... unstable matter" - normally we call them ions. They don't decay, but they attract replacement electrons from their surroundings. In other words, all you'd get from a reverse lightning strike would be ... another lightning strike in the opposite direction just afterwards. It would even reuse the same channel of ionized air. $\endgroup$ – John Dvorak Jun 18 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ Ions are not unstable, they are just electrically imbalanced. Eventually they will equilibrate and return ro a neutral charge. the current theory predicts the positron will continue to exist until it collides with an electron, then both will cease to exist and generate a proton. The fanciful suggestion is that they become sub atomically unstable and, just like radioactive materials, decay, but based on a different manner of decay. Remember this is a suggestion for someones fictional story $\endgroup$ – EDL Jun 18 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ Positron anihilate with electrons, but not with neutrons nor protons. So... if you throw positrons to some good old regular barionic matter, you remove all the electrons, but neuron and protons are left behind. That is you leave atomic nuclei, which we could conceptuallize as ions (cations). No, protons and positrons do not decay... however, yes, they could make other matter radiactive (an helium nucleus, which consists of two protons and two neutrons, is an alpha particle, and alpha radiation can lead to fission). $\endgroup$ – Theraot Jun 18 at 10:53
  • $\begingroup$ What do positron do to protons? Aside from electrical repulson... a proton is composed of two up quarks and a down quark, the positron interacts with the down quark, changing it to an up quarks and releasing an electron antineutrino. The particle composed of three up quarks is unstable, and will decay to a proton and a pi meson... the pi meson could decay to a muon and a muon neutrino, the muon decays back to a positron and a electron neutrino and an muon antineutrino. So, yeah, you have a positron and a proton back after the proton-positorn collision, plus two neutrino/antineutrino pairs. $\endgroup$ – Theraot Jun 18 at 10:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.