It seems more like a case of one layer inducing mechanical work in the other, which in turn results in loss of efficiency due to inertia and actual friction within that layer.

Now, define friction.

I know that sounds like just a pithy response without much thought put to it. But actually, that may be what friction is. I'll also note that nothing about physics and the interactions of matter is actually as intuitive as it appears. For example one might say, "well friction is when two materials touch and rub against each other" but remember, materials never actually touch, the molecules of each material are only ever near each other at best. So what is happening that causes that resistive force?

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The atoms repelling each other via the strong nuclear force… is that what causes resistive force? I don’t know, just asking,

[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Atoms repel by electrostatic forces. Essentially, electro-magnetism. The strong nuclear force acts on subatomic particles at distances far shorter.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I think that pushes them apart, keeps them from actually occupying the same space. So that's definitely involved. But why do molecules moving past each other lose momentum? I could make a guess, but I'm not actually certain. Like I said, physics tends to be pretty unintuitive at this scale.

(Technically I suppose they're not losing momentum, they're exchanging it for heat)

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I have a private theory that it’s just fields all the way down. E.g., no electrons (as in separate things), just observable points in the one electromagnetic field. This helps me intuit the idea that energy transfers between things — with “transfer” simply being a kind of interaction between separate fields.

Electrons moving past each other slowing down? Can that be reproduced with an electron gun, or would this be based off a larger mass that includes other subatomic particles as well?

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Fields aren't observable. If I sprinkle some magnetic filings around a magnetic field, I will see the filings move, and even conform to the force lines of the field. But, at the end of the day, what I am seeing is the behavior of the particles, not the field. If all that exists are fields, then reality wouldn't be observable, which clearly contradicts with what we observe.

Of course, you say that there "observable points" added to the field, but I don't see how this is different form just saying that there are particles in the field, since that's basically all a particle is, an observable point. Quite literally. Particles are understood as dimensionless points which are defined in terms of their observables.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Only one way to find out. Fire two election guns at each other and see what happens.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Set one to "stun" and one to "kill". :)