Scientists Just Discovered That Light Can Create Friction—No Contact Required 35%

By Elizabeth Rayne29%

7/24/2026, 1:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 1,200 faulty-reasoning hits from 828 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.3% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,377 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.70% of the article peer group.

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:Usually, friction requires two surfaces rubbing against each other. 
But researchers have now demonstrated that friction can also arise in the quantum realm without any physical contact at all.When scientists submerged graphene nanotubes in water and exposed them to light, they found that brighter, hotter illumination caused the tubes to slow down rather than speed up—the opposite of what thermal energy normally does to particles in a liquid. 
The culprit was quantum friction: fluctuating charges generated by light on the graphene surface interacted with surrounding water molecules, creating a drag force that increased with illumination.Nemesis of everything from tires to surfboards, but a hero when it comes to preventing skids or lighting matches, friction is the resistance that slows down movement when surfaces rub against each other. 
This is the force behind grippy shoe soles and “magic” infomercial cloths that polish to a mirror shine. 
Friction is made possible by physical contact—at least under normal circumstances. 
But what happens when you remove contact from the equation entirely? 
Our understanding of friction is being redefined by a weird quantum phenomenon. 
In 2022, researchers discovered that the positive charge of water molecules, which fluctuates as it flows through a carbon nanotube, interacts with the negatively charged electrons in the tube’s walls. 
The result was an infinitesimal amount of friction at the interface of water and carbon—arising not from surface roughness, but from electromagnetic interactions. 
Then last year, a research team at the Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics in China observed that folding ultrathin graphene sheets altered the structure of electrons by exciting them, causing friction at the folded edges to deviate from the usual linear pattern.Wanting to build on these findings, physical chemist Sebastian Kruss of Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany investigated what happened to graphene nanotubes when they were submerged in water and exposed to light of increasing brightness. 
The result defied expectations—but not in the way you might think. 
Higher levels of thermal energy usually cause particles to diffuse through a liquid faster, because diffusion is driven by kinetic energy: more heat means more molecular motion, happening sooner and at higher velocities. 
Yet when Kruss and his team tracked the nanotubes, they found the opposite. 
Instead of speeding up under brighter, hotter light, the tubes slowed down. 
Diffusion decreased because an unexpected source of friction was working against it.“ 
Friction is expected to increase when the surface response function of the substrate overlaps with the low-frequency spectrum of the solvent…this is demonstrated by anomalies in hydrodynamic friction at water–carbon interface and by the rapid cooling of hot electrons in graphene in water,” he said in a study recently published in Nature.So what was creating this contactless drag? 
The answer lies in graphene’s extraordinary properties. 
Super-strong despite being incredibly thin, graphene has around 200 times the strength of steel but the thickness of only one atom, making it 100,000 times thinner than the typical human hair. 
Being a single sheet of carbon atoms arranged in a perfect lattice gives it an incredible smoothness, free of the bumps and imperfections found on most materials—even those that appear flawless to the naked eye. 
That smoothness rules out conventional friction from surface roughness. 
Instead, the source of the drag was electronic: it was as if the tubes, which glowed under illumination, were moving through something thicker than water.Here’s why. 
The light was turning electrons into excitons—pairs consisting of an electron that has been excited to a higher energy state and the positively charged “hole” left behind in its former position. 
The negative charge of the electron and the positive charge of the hole cancel each other out, so excitons carry no net charge. 
But they can still transfer energy and emit light, which explains the fluorescent glow of the tubes. 
Crucially, the formation of excitons on the graphene surface created fluctuating electrical charges within the material. 
Those fluctuations transferred momentum to H₂O molecules at the graphene-water interface, producing drag. 
More illumination meant more excitons, which meant more friction and more deceleration, all without any surfaces physically rubbing together.The researchers confirmed this mechanism using terahertz (THz) spectroscopy and found that eliminating excitons removed the friction entirely. 
The discovery opens the door to practical applications: by manipulating quantum friction with light, scientists could potentially speed up or slow down chemical reactions on demand. 
Even more tantalizing, nanorobots designed to explore previously unreachable places, from inside the human body to the deepest crevices of the Mariana Trench, might one day be steered simply by adjusting the light that triggers this effect.“ 
Light-induced slowing down of [motion] can be physically or chemically manipulated to affect the movement of a nanomaterial in an aqueous solution,” said Kruss. 
“We can anticipate future approaches to control the movement of microswimmers or nanorobots...the findings also raise the question of whether the effect could be present in other systems with high exciton mobility/charge fluctuations.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.5%Elizabeth Rayne: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 3.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 3.9%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 1.3%Elizabeth Rayne: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias1.3%This article: 2.9%Elizabeth Rayne: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 2.5%Elizabeth Rayne: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.3%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.5%Elizabeth Rayne: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Elizabeth Rayne: 5.9%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 3.1%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority11.0%This article: 7.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 3.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.3%Elizabeth Rayne: 3.4%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization4.3%This article: 7.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring7.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.2%Elizabeth Rayne: 5.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion1.2%This article: 2.2%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 17.8%Elizabeth Rayne: 3.9%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.8%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.2%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature4.2%This article: 1.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division1.1%This article: 6.6%Elizabeth Rayne: 2.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Elizabeth Rayne: 3.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.5%Elizabeth Rayne: 5.4%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 3.1%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elizabeth Rayne: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

828 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.0%attributed speech795writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 75 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSebastian Kruss • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sebastian Kruss

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Sebastian Kruss: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Sebastian Kruss: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Sebastian Kruss: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.