4 ms·

> there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to a wall But the accepted explanation is "static electricity"

by Eduard 4y ago

> there isn't even an accepted explanation for why rubbing a balloon on your head makes it stick to a wall 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?

beambot 4y ago
This is the triboelectric effect, and the low-lying mechanisms are poorly understood & poorly characterized.
- Eduard 4y ago
  Reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect , I have the impression the mechanisms are not _that_ poorly understood, at least from my layman's perspective.
  - JimBlackwood 4y ago
    It's in the lines: > 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.
    - bardworx 4y ago
      > 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). 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.
      - JimBlackwood 4y ago
        Sorry for my late response. Anyway: 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.
        bardworx 4y ago
        Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities. Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jpttsn 4y ago
At that point why not call it “witchcraft;” a sciencey word for something is not an explanation.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Clearly you've never recalibrated the thermal interferometery scanner so you can reverse the polarity of the neutron flow in the isoneutronic pulse wave carrier.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    That's technobabble - a pejorative term for a technical word salad that usually is an explanation, just not a very good one.
  - voldacar 4y ago
    A good retroencabulator helps a lot here.
  - alfor 4y ago
    You need a plumbus for that. Everyone need one.
- vaidhy 4y ago
  We do not call it witchcraft, because that is the end of the discussion and the answer. We call it unknown because it is knowable and is the beginning of the experiments.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >We do not call it witchcraft, because that is the end of the discussion and the answer. 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.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Hail science https://youtu.be/tl55gVXsBZE https://youtu.be/tl55gVXsBZE
Sharlin 4y ago
"Static electricity" as an explanation without follow-up "why?" questions is just a curiosity-stopper [1] or guessing the teacher's password [2]. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as-curiosity-stopper https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-the-teacher-s-password https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-t...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by Eduard 4y ago

beambot 4y ago

This is the triboelectric effect, and the low-lying mechanisms are poorly understood & poorly characterized.

Eduard 4y ago
Reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect , I have the impression the mechanisms are not _that_ poorly understood, at least from my layman's perspective.
- JimBlackwood 4y ago
  It's in the lines: > 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.
  - bardworx 4y ago
    > 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). 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.
    - JimBlackwood 4y ago
      Sorry for my late response. Anyway: 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.
      - bardworx 4y ago
        Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities. Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jpttsn 4y ago

At that point why not call it “witchcraft;” a sciencey word for something is not an explanation.

moffkalast 4y ago
Clearly you've never recalibrated the thermal interferometery scanner so you can reverse the polarity of the neutron flow in the isoneutronic pulse wave carrier.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  That's technobabble - a pejorative term for a technical word salad that usually is an explanation, just not a very good one.
- voldacar 4y ago
  A good retroencabulator helps a lot here.
- alfor 4y ago
  You need a plumbus for that. Everyone need one.
vaidhy 4y ago
We do not call it witchcraft, because that is the end of the discussion and the answer. We call it unknown because it is knowable and is the beginning of the experiments.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >We do not call it witchcraft, because that is the end of the discussion and the answer. 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.
dmitriid 4y ago
Hail science https://youtu.be/tl55gVXsBZE https://youtu.be/tl55gVXsBZE

Sharlin 4y ago

"Static electricity" as an explanation without follow-up "why?" questions is just a curiosity-stopper [1] or guessing the teacher's password [2]. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as-curiosity-stopper https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L22jhyY9ocXQNLqyE/science-as... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-the-teacher-s-password https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NMoLJuDJEms7Ku9XS/guessing-t...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]