Look at the title. Imagine what you'd expect an article whose title is "What causes lightning?" to say.
Now, here's how the article closes:
"These features suggest that even as explanations get more comprehensive, the case of how lightning really works will keep getting reopened. “It just gets more and more bizarre the more we look,” Dwyer said. “Clearly our very simple pictures here are really incomplete.”
So TLDR, we don't know, we know we don't know, and in fact we anticipate not knowing for quite some time. The article explicitly admits it doesn't know the answer to the question it posed in the title - no, the answer doesn't keep getting more interesting, because we don't have the answer yet.
No. The title has a question mark. And the premise that many people think lightning is a dielectric breakdown from high voltage is accurate (if not those words). Posing it as a question is completely valid because it still is an open question.
Look at the title. Imagine what you'd expect an article whose title is "What causes lightning?" to say.
Now, here's how the article closes:
"These features suggest that even as explanations get more comprehensive, the case of how lightning really works will keep getting reopened. “It just gets more and more bizarre the more we look,” Dwyer said. “Clearly our very simple pictures here are really incomplete.”
So TLDR, we don't know, we know we don't know, and in fact we anticipate not knowing for quite some time. The article explicitly admits it doesn't know the answer to the question it posed in the title - no, the answer doesn't keep getting more interesting, because we don't have the answer yet.
That's clickbait.