The Theory of Film Differs Significantly from Material Theory I

What is it about?

In a contemporary research domain, the previously accepted theories have been overturned in accordance with fundamental principles of physics. [00] 刘颖, 刘跃, 膜的微波吸收机理, 分子科学学报. 2023,39(06), 521 - 527 [0] Ying Liu, Michael. G.B. Drew, Yue Liu, Chapter 4: Fundamental Theory of Microwave Absorption for Films of Porous Nanocomposites: Role of Interfaces in Composite-Fillers, in Porous Nanocomposites for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding, Edited by: Avinash R. Pai, Claudio Paoloni, Sabu Thomas, 2023, Elsevier, in press, [978-0-323-90035-5_B978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1] [1] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 1: Theory, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134, 045303 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153608 [2] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134, 045304 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153612 [3] Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103022 [4] Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 2:. Angular effects and the wave cancellation theory, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103024 [5] Ying Liu; Xiangbin Yin; M. G. B. Drew; Yue Liu, Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2023, 666, 415108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2023.415108 Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, 2023-02-23 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2616469/v2, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2616469/v2 Supplementary information: Available comments and our responses https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2616469/v2/4158ec92f7bc53b6a7637ffc.pdf [6] Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48. https://doi.org/10.30564/nmms.v5i1.5602 [7] A Re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 1: Energy Conservation, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 290, 126576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126576 [8] A Re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 2: The Real Mechanism, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 291, 126601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126601 [9] A re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 3: Inverse Relationship, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 290, 126521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126521 [10] A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022, 97(1): 015806, has been downloaded 355 times. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb1 The problems in the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analysising microwave absorption material, 2021-08-30 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1 [11] A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021, 96(12): 125003, has been downloaded 322 times. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb0 [12] A theoretical analysis of the relationships shown from the general experimental results of scattering parameters s11 and s21 – exemplified by the film of BaFe12-iCeiO19/polypyrene with i = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 2021, 55(3): 197-218, has been downloaded 171 times https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08327823.2021.1952835 [13] An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020, 243: 122624 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0254058420300067 [14] A theoretical and practical clarification on the calculation of reflection loss for microwave absorbing materials. AIP Advances 2018, 8(1): 015223, has viewed more than 5000 times. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4991448 [15] A systemized parameter set applicable to microwave absorption for ferrite based materials. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2017, 29(2): 1562-1575 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10854-017-8066-0 [16] Microwave absorption properties of Ag/NiFe2-xCexO4 characterized by an alternative procedure rather than the main stream method using “reflection loss”. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020, 243: 122615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122615 [17] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 1: Transmission Line Theory and Microwave Absorption. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(9): 2489-2504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4043-3 [18] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 2: Close Packing Model for Crystal Structure. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(10): 2777-2789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4042-4 [19] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials-Part 3: Crystal Structure and Synthesis. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(11): 3019-3025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4040-6 [20] Characterization microwave absorption from active carbon/BaSmxFe12−xO19/polypyrrole composites analyzed with a more rigorous method. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2019, 30(2): 1936-1956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-0467-1 [21] Preparation and characterization of BaSmxFe12 – xO19/polypyrrole composites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018, 29(15): 13148-13160 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-9438-9

Featured Image

Why is it important?

https://www.backchina.com/blog/360199/article-252133.html 一篇有关民科的文章 苏诚忠 (已有 1,504,299 人访问过博主空间) https://www.backchina.com/u/360199 一篇有关民科的文章 作者：苏诚忠 于 2016-6-3 19:48 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村 Translation from Chinese: ScienceNet recently published a blog post about amateur scientists. Since the website doesn't allow comments (at least, they don't allow me), I can only express my views here. The original author is "Broken Bridge," and the title is "If Amateur Scientists are Given Sufficient Money and Time, Can They Produce Scientific Results?" Original Text: "Can an amateur scientist who is enthusiastic about academia, not aiming to reach the top (because that requires talent), but only hoping to achieve results like an ordinary Ph.D. student, make it?" Rebuttal: It seems like the author doesn't value Ph.D. students much. What is valued then, academicians? Throughout history, most technological advancements have been the result of amateur scientists' efforts. All achievements were amateur until they were accepted by the mainstream. Official scientists like to emphasize the role of talent. What is talent? In the "Berkeley Physics Course" Volume 1, "Mechanics," there's a passage: "The great achievements of experimental science have been accomplished by people of different types. Some are diligent, some persevering, some have keen insights, some are creative, some are full of energy, some are experienced and cautious, some are clever and skillful, and some are meticulous. There are also those with nimble hands, some prefer to use simple equipment, while others have invented or made many sophisticated, large, or complex instruments. The vast majority of them share one thing: they are honest, they genuinely make the observations they record; they publish their results, enabling others to replicate these experiments or observations." In the path of science, there is no inherent hierarchy. These hierarchies are created to meet societal needs. Only official scientists treat a Ph.D. as the ultimate goal. As mentioned earlier, none of the four major mentors at Tsinghua University held a Ph.D. Original Text: Type 1 Amateur Scientists. Proficient in a field different from their interests. They love scientific research but may not be suitable for it. It's like a tone-deaf person trying to be a singer. This is the earliest and most familiar type of amateur scientist. Characteristics: They do not understand the norms of basic scientific research but create their own severely flawed research methods. Rebuttal: Zhao Yuanren studied physical chemistry, without specific language studies. Does that mean he's tone-deaf in linguistics? Must he spend his entire life in physical mathematics? Louis Pasteur studied chemistry; should he have restricted himself to chemistry throughout his life? Does not having a formal education in a field mean one cannot engage in research? Consider Charles Darwin; during his schooling, the theory of evolution didn't exist. Even if he wanted to study that, there was no established discipline. What exactly are the norms of basic science? Who can define them? Throughout history, both in China and abroad, significant breakthroughs often came from ignoring established norms. So, the key question is whether "norms" are more important than "innovation," whether "following conventions" is more important than "content," and whether "immediate benefits" matter more than "intellectual breakthroughs." Original Text: Type 2 Amateur Scientists. On the surface, they love science, but in reality, they love the fame and fortune of top scientists. Rebuttal: This is precisely what official scientists do. Amateur scientists pursue their interests as a hobby, without seeking fame or fortune. Otherwise, why call them "amateurs"? Official scientists are different; they have official titles. Academicians are at the level of ministers, and even if they accomplish nothing throughout their careers, they can enjoy ministerial privileges through various assessments and exams (without inventing anything). This is the root cause of China's technological lag. Furthermore, where in the world are "top scientists"? There are only top scientific achievements. Even those who make these discoveries can make mistakes and can't be called "top scientists." One of the fundamental reasons for China's technological backwardness is that official scientists institutionalize and categorize individuals, and they claim to be right. On the contrary, Western countries believe that "Great men have great faults." Heroes make significant mistakes. Those who dare not admit their errors are considered cowards. However, in China, official scientists, aiming to secure long-term positions, tend to hide or destroy their errors. Scientists in any country worldwide make mistakes. However, you've probably never heard of a significant academic error committed by any Chinese official scientist, have you? Are Chinese official scientists different from scholars in other countries, never making errors and being flawless? It's this academic deceit that has led to China's decline in science and culture. Original Text: Type 3 Amateur Scientists. Their research methods or goals are incorrect, but they engage in "academic research" as a means of livelihood. Rebuttal: Whether a research method is right or wrong isn't decided by an official scientist. Official scientists consider their methods right, but over the years, China's scientific development has not fared well compared to its national football team. It's the official scientists who are motivated by money and interests, lacking enthusiasm and uniqueness. They reach their current levels and positions by leveraging their social connections in the bureaucratic system, not by following their natural inclinations. If amateur scientists want to make money, why don't they start a business? Many amateur scientists already have a certain economic foundation. Original Text: Type 4 Amateur Scientists: Proficient in using technical jargon in mass media, well-versed in high school or undergraduate knowledge, possess scientific thinking abilities, write articles with very standardized formats, but lack professional qualifications. Professionals know they are amateur scientists, while non-professionals mistakenly believe they are scientists. My academic level is relatively low, so I received many review requests from low-grade journals in my early years, including some amateur scientist papers. These papers were rigorously formatted, with precise use of terminology, so they could deceive editors smoothly. However, even professionals with lower levels could easily see that the authors didn't understand anything. Rebuttal: If even those proficient in standard formats are considered amateur scientists, then what are official scientists? Why not say that good people are official scientists, and bad people are amateur scientists? What is professional qualification? Have the criteria that official scientists have been demanding resulted in China's science and technology lagging behind year after year? If pursuing "qualification" leads to this, then it's better not to pursue it. China's official scientists spend the most money but produce the least results worldwide. The author claims to have done review work, explaining why there has never been a high-quality article in Chinese journals. That's because official scientists handle reviews, and even the highest-ranked official scientists are akin to burdens who've only bullied Chinese taxpayers for 40 years. Original Text: After distancing themselves from academia, the amateur scientists lose the ability to distinguish between genuine and fake materials (Amateur Scientist Type 4). They don't understand public opinion, and they don't know that correct judgments are based on clean information input. Top academic journals are extremely strict about fraud and data falsification to ensure the information within the academic community is clean and reliable. Rebuttal: This passage fully exposes the true nature of official scientists. These people pretend to be academics but rely on public opinion. They consider themselves lofty but cannot explain why official scientists continually commit fraud. Is Huang Yuxi, who served as the Chief Professor of the Veterinary Department at Seoul National University, an official scientist? In ancient times, true learning was found among the common people and often in the hands of recluses. Only such individuals could live peacefully and maintain their ideals. Ancient scholars, thinkers, and scientists often had experience as recluses. Until the Song Dynasty, scholars held in high regard those who chose not to conform to societal norms and remained untainted by worldly influences. This respect for such individuals gave rise to figures like Shen Kuo, who, during his eight years of seclusion, authored the "Dream Pool Essays." However, in the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang was the first to disrupt this tradition. He insisted that if you were appointed to an official position, you had to accept it. Those who dared to resign from office faced severe penalties, and those who didn't conform to the bureaucratic system were either marginalized or physically eliminated. This ultimately led to the dominance of official-centered culture, where officials had the final say and didn't need to seek input from others. Consequently, Chinese popular thought diverged from official ideology, and amateur scientists started struggling for survival. This period coincided with the emergence of several classical novels. China's national strength began to wane, and after a prolonged period of stagnation, China's academic realm has been under the rule of official scientists for forty years, leading to various issues. Currently, the only culture that China can export is official science culture. Western countries have rapidly embraced the concept of the "flat world," exemplified by the emergence of lifelong professors in the United States. This means that after passing a certain examination, whatever you say is considered correct. However, the United States has already established itself as a leader in various fields and can afford such practices. Should China also emulate these practices and follow in their footsteps? In a red-highlighted editor's note on ScienceNet, it is stated, "The article by 'Broken Bridge' is really good, with rigorous logic and clear reasoning. However, when reading his introduction to amateur scientists, it feels like he's hitting the mark... After reading it, a question has been lingering in my mind: if you provide official scientists with enough money and time, can they produce scientific results?" This demonstrates that even the site's moderators have noticed that official scientists no longer care about their reputation and are willing to make such bold statements.

Perspectives