But the accepted explanation is "static electricity", no?
Or do you mean we don't "really" know when asking a couple of follow-up "why?" questions further?
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as...
[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-t...
> The triboelectric effect is very unpredictable, and only broad generalizations can be made.
> The mechanisms of triboelectrification (or contact-electrification) have been debated for many years, with possible mechanisms including electron transfer, ion transfer or the material's species transfer.
> Recent studies in 2018 using Kelvin probe microscopy and triboelectric nanogenerators revealed that electron transfer is the dominant mechanism for triboelectrification between solid and solid.
> For a general case, since triboelectrification occurs for any material, a generic model has been proposed by Wang, in which the electron transfer is caused by a strong electron cloud overlap between two atoms for the lowered interatomic potential barrier by shortening the bonding length.
So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc).
Unless there's a tested model with predictable results, I'd say we're not really understanding it properly.
This seems like a very large part, no?
I mean, we know it works, we get the majority of it, and it doesn’t seem super necessary to spend a lot of dollars and brain power to satisfy an internet debate on a theory of rubbing a balloon on one’s head.
I get your point. However, this is worked on by researchers who get paid to work on unsolved problems. This is one of them. It's a surprising one, since it looks like such a simple and obvious effect governed by physics we've (seemingly) understood for centuries. Gauss's Laws are from 1773 and much of the work on static electricity is from that era.
So, it's not just an internet debate. Knowing how things work _exactly_ is what scientists do. Getting the majority is not good enough.
And yes, that will often surpass the scale of "Is what we're doing useful?". However, won't know until we find out. Most likely understanding this effect will not bring any revolutionary insight but we should understand it nonetheless. Maybe our understanding will help someone else solve a problem, that solves another problem, that solved another problem, that gives someone a brilliant idea.
Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.
Everyone need one.
Also, we'd have to eliminate the practitioners for clearly being witches. We've had that period and history, but it seems some modern day people are content to bring that very time period back.