The Quarter-Wavelength Theory of Microwave Absorption Has Been Debunked II

What is it about?

Papers Challenge Established Theories: [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?

arXiv Preprint The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower Ying Liu, Kaiqi Yang, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05966 同行评审伦理：象牙塔中的缺陷 刘颖，杨凯奇，刘跃，DREW Michael G. B https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966 抛弃“同行评议”，获得“专家共识” https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-1377383.html [Ref. 1] “Can so many scientists have been wrong over the eighty years since 1925? Unhappily, yes. The mainstream in science, as any scientist will tell you, is often wrong. Otherwise, come to think of it, science would be complete. Few scientists would make that claim, or would want to. Statistical significance is surely not the only error in modern science, although it has been, as we will show, an exceptionally damaging one. Scientists are often tardy in fixing basic flaws in their sciences despite the presence of better alternatives. Think of the half century it took American geologists to recognize the truth of drifting continents, a theory proposed in 1915 by—of all eminently ignorable people—a German meteorologist. Scientists, after all, are human. What Nietzsche called the ‘twilight of the idols,’ the fear of losing a powerful symbol or god or technology, haunts us all” Ziliak, S. T. and McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press [Ref. 2] Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013) https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BaFe12-iCeiO19-PPy https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254 [Ref. 3] “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/407998797 https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/363487648 [Ref. 4] “some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.” Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/. 16 Oct 2018 [Ref. 5] S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 577(7788) (2020) 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2 [Ref. 6] “Poster 1: Charles Townes and the Laser [After] we had been at it for two years, Rabi and Kusch, the former and current chairman of the department — both of them Nobel laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of weight behind their opinions — came into my office and sat down. They were worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did mine. ‘Look,’ they said, ‘you should stop the work you are doing. It isn‘t going to work. You know it‘s not going to work. We know it‘s not going to work. You‘re wasting money. Just stop!’ But Townes had come to Columbia on tenure, so he knew he couldn’t be fired for incompetence or ordered around. Nevertheless, the awesome weight of Rabi‘s reputation in particular — a one-time senior member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s legendary Radiation Laboratory set up by Vannevar Bush to develop wartime radar — must have been daunting. Such top brass cannot be defied lightly, and showing extraordinary courage, this junior faculty member stood his ground, and respectfully told his exalted colleagues that he would continue. Two months later (in April 1954), his experiment worked, and the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) was born. Three years after that Arthur Schawlow, Townes‘ postdoc at Columbia, had moved to the Bell Laboratories, and their collaboration led to the optical version of the maser — the laser. Townes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for these discoveries [shared with Aleksander Prokhorov and Nikolai Basov (USSR), who developed the maser and laser independently]. Schawlow was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1981 for his work on laser spectroscopy.” Donald W. Braben – Scientific Freedom – The Elixir of Civilization, Wiley Interscience (2008) [Ref. 7] “So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals [Ref. 8] “Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don‘t please reviewers get rejected … Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable, but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation. Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper showing that Black people are just as smart as white people? Or any paper at all by a Black author? (And if you think that‘s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today.) We still don‘t understand basic truths about the universe, and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked. Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.” https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review The rise and fall of peer review [Ref. 9] “Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the (peer) review of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries. The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. … It (peer review) works well enough in the mainstream but it is at the margins where major discoveries are made, where people don’t believe in the current wisdom and want to head off into dramatically different directions. To submit those ideas to peer review is disastrous” https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn Kill peer review, save civilization [Ref. 10] “On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles they publish every year. Good luck!” https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review The rise and fall of peer review [Ref. 11] “We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, … The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798 J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals [Ref. 12] “Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申：历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value. [Ref. 13] 梳理这段历史，会发现这些重大原始创新在刚面世时都遭到了业界的质疑和抵制，差点夭折。 这不是个例，浮栅晶体管、异质结、绝缘栅双极型晶体管（IGBT）、微机电系统（MEMS）、浸没式光刻等重大发明都遭到过抵制。 为什么这些发明一开始都不受待见呢？芯片的发展离不开持续的创新和超越，然而创新越大，对传统的叛逆和颠覆也越大，因而遭到传统势力的抵制就越大。 中国科学报，2023-09-16 第3版 读书 When delving into this historical period, it becomes apparent that these groundbreaking original innovations faced skepticism and opposition within the industry upon their initial emergence, nearly teetering on the brink of extinction. This phenomenon is not an isolated occurrence; major breakthroughs like floating-gate transistors, heterojunctions, insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), immersion lithography, and others have also confronted resistance. What prompted this initial lack of acceptance for these inventions? The advancement of semiconductor technology hinges on ongoing innovation and breakthroughs. However, the greater the innovation, the more it challenges and disrupts established norms, resulting in heightened resistance from traditional forces. Published in China Science Daily, September 16, 2023, 3rd Edition, Book Review. https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=39253 https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/2023/9/20239156508226.pdf [ref 14] https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218 Ethical problems in academic peer review https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219 The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1044 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1037 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1040 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1036 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1026 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1046 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1020 真正的同行评审是在你的论文发表之后才发生的 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ The Problem with Peer Review - Eric Weinstein QUOTES FROM THIS VIDEO Peer review is a cancer from outer space. It came from the biomedical community. It invaded science. The old system because I have to say this because many people who are now professional scientists have an idea that peer review has always been in our literature and it absolutely motherfucking has not. Right? Okay. Used to be that the editor of a journal took responsibility for the quality of the journal, … because they had courageous, knowledgeable, forward-thinking editors. And so I just want to be very clear because there is a mind virus out there that says peer review is the Sine qua non of scientific excellence, yada yada yada, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. And if you don't believe me, go back and learn that this is a recent invasive problem in the sciences. Recent invasive problem that has no justification for existing in light of the fact that not only does it have no justification for existing when Watson and Crick did the double helix, and this is the cleanest example we have, the paper was agreed should not be sent out for review because anyone who was competent would understand immediately what its implications were. There are reasons that great work cannot be peer reviewed. Furthermore, you have entire fields that are existing now with electronic archives that are not peer reviewed. Peer review is not peer review. It sounds like peer review. It is. Peer injunction is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work. Keep the world from learning about your work because peer review is what happens. Real peer review is what happens after you've passed the bullshit thing called peer review. Yes. Translation to Chinese: 同行评审是从反科学领域入侵的到科学界的癌症。它就像生物病原侵入科学领域。 现在很多专业科学家误以为同行评审理应存在于文献评审中，但事实绝对不是这样的。 过去，期刊的编辑对期刊的质量负有责任，因为他们有勇气、有知识、有前瞻性的编辑。 “同行评审是科学卓越的不可或缺的条件”的声称完全是胡说八道。所以我只想非常清楚地表明，这种说辞是在外面传播的思维病毒。 如果你不相信我的话，回去回顾一下，是同行评审侵入了科学领域、是完全没有正当存在理由的侵入，同行评审不仅在沃森和克里克做双螺旋结构的时候没有正当理由存在。沃森和克里克做双螺旋结构的案例是我们最清晰的一个例子，说明一篇优秀的论文，大家都同意不应该将这篇论文送去评审，因为任何有能力的人都会立刻理解它的意义。 伟大的工作是不能进行同行评审的，理由很充分。此外，现在已经有不经过同行评审的电子存档。 现行同行评审不是真正的同行评审。现行同行评审听起来像是同行评审，但实际上不是。 现行同行评审是你的同行有能力阻止世界了解你的工作。因为同行评审而能让同行阻止世界了解你的工作。真正的同行评审是在你的论文发表之后才发生的。 杨正瓴. 基础研究：“同行评议”加“短期考核”迫使谁也干不成正经事！ https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1310598.html 杨正瓴, 近两周的工作记录(2023-04-23 以来), https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1386904.html 杨正瓴, Zenas 公理：2023年汪波老师的《为什么芯片相关的发明最初总不受待见？》, https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=107667&do=blog&id=1402929 吕喆, 科研的“主流”与“非主流” https://wap.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&do=blog&id=409496 张志东，培养和造就一大批非主流科学家 https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-2344-409295.html?mobile=1 赵涛, 非主流科学家为何取得大成果 https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-528016-979443.html 杨正瓴. 同行评议的局限性和改进之策[J]. 科技中国,2019(11):34-36, https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/kjzg201911009 绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛! https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582700776632704690&wfr=spider&for=pc

Perspectives