Researchers have uncovered friction without contact—driven entirely by magnetic interactions. As two magnetic layers slide, their internal forces compete, causing constant rearrangements that dramatically increase resistance at certain distances. This creates a surprising peak in friction instead of a steady rise, breaking a long-standing physics law.
Reading the article it seems this research is about Amonton’s first law which is about the way friction increases with load. This experiment shows that in certain scenarios the friction can be low when the distance is close or far but at a medium distance (not sure the exact distances here) the friction increases thus breaking Amontons’ first law.
Given that they use an array of magnets that can rotate freely, it’s not “breaking” the law. At a distance the magnets are random and exert a force to lateral movement. Move the magnet array closer and the magnets align to the magnet below and the force changes.
It’s like saying a ball on a hill violates Amonton’s law. At the top of the hill you can push it easily. Push a little more such that it rolls down the hill and now in the valley of the hill you need more force to move it because pushing sideways means you are trying also push it uphill.
The magnets once flipped do not unflip when pulled back from the magnetic surface.
Given they are using an array of freely floating magnets it doesn’t seem like a big “breaking”. It’s possible to create normal mechanical systems that also “breaks” Amontons’ first law. For example, imagine a surface with an array of spring loaded pegs poking out of holes on a teflon surface. At light loads the object will have to slide against the pegs. But push a little harder and the pegs will push down into the holes of the surface and the object is now sliding on teflon.
Ah! Thank you for the correction. Much appreciated!
Oh wow a lot farther than i was thinking. I had guessed submillimeter. Thanks for the link to the paper.
Magnets such as those NdFeB magnets (N35 grade with nickel surface coating, HKCM Article No. 9963-73617 and HKCM Article No. 9962-61814) weren’t tested back then, I guess.