Sure, level A physics assume zero friction and a vacuum.
Only not to complicate matters, but the example you provided should be sufficient to clarify my thoughts.
If a ball bounces off a surface, we like to consider this collision without any 'loss' of energy.
However, is it not the simplest truth to acknowledge without resistance (friction) the ball would simply pass through the surface? Or like I stated earlier in the example of kicking a ball, without friction, the foot would pass through the ball. It's quite simple really.
Were this not the case, I'd imagine we'd be driving (amongst other things) 'perpertua mobile'.
As for quantum friction, well, leading physicist don't quite agree on this one; to categorically state that there is no such thing is somewhat presumptuous. Admittedly my assumption that there is, could equally be seen as presumptuous though
Assuming there is, all my statements stand without need of any amends.
If there isn't, I'll gladly eat humble pie and admit your superiority on the matter.
Edit: just occurred to me now, rehashing the 'sail argument'.
High pressure, low pressure etc, right?
Okay, we all know the temperature rises (linear) as the pressure increases.
But why, if not because of more molecules being packed into the same volume, thereby colliding with one another more frequently. These collisions cause molecular friction, with heat as its by-product.
Makes sense, right?
Why else (other than "it's the law") would the temperature increase?
Merely trying to explain in the simplest way I can why I support the notion of molecular and even quantum friction.
Please do continue challenging me, I find it most interesting
"Too often we take for granted what our collective dream tells us is possible or impossible, acceptable or unacceptable."
The Four Insights by Alberto Villoldo