科学网-纠正微波吸收文献中错误的综述（文章摘译）-刘跃的博文

纠正微波吸收文献中错误的综述（文章摘译）

2025-2-4 01:17

阅读：843

1. 文章主要内容

文章发表日期：2025年2月3日

文章引文143引用了博客文章，这是被学界潜规则禁止的（但是期刊Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research允许这样引用）：

(143) Liu, Y. Chemistry is not an experimental science, physics is not an experimental science, and correct theory is the only criterion in science, 2024. https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1425484.html (accessed 2025 18 January).

科学网—化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准 - 刘跃的博文

文章节选：

It is often believed that theories are more likely to be wrong than experimental results, but this judgment is only superficially true.¹⁴² When the conclusions from theory and experiments are in conflict, the conditions under which the experimental data were obtained needs to be carefully checked before the theory is investigated.¹⁴³Theory is a high-level recapitulation of different experimental phenomena. Theory is the real nature abstracted from different experimental phenomena. The purpose of the experiment is to achieve a theoretical understanding. Thus, theory makes it easy to grasp different experimental phenomena. It is usually difficult to identify the wrong conclusions obtained from experimental results without the guidance of correct theory

译文

人们通常认为：与实验结果相比，理论更有可能是错误的，但这种观念是肤浅的。¹⁴²当理论和实验的结论相冲突时，经常是实验结果是错误的。¹⁴³理论是对不同实验现象的高级概括。理论是从不同的实验现象中抽象出来的真实本质。实验的目的是取得理论认知。因此，理论使人们更容易地把握不同的实验现象。如果没有正确的理论指导，要发现从实验结果中得出的结论其实是错误的，是一件很困难的事。

我的所有文章都发出来了，一个小遗憾是这一篇是个预印本。

但是现在这个小遗憾也解决了。

文章的中心思想：

由于文章指出的这种错误没有被纠正，微波吸收材料领域建立了更加错误的微波吸收的现行主流理论，

由于文章指出的这种错误没有被纠正，这个错误理论统治学界至今，长期得不到纠正。

由于文章指出的这种错误没有被纠正，在正确的微波吸收的波动力学新理论建立后，主流科学家理解不了新理论，继续使用错误理论大量发表文章，不提反对理论。

文章发表后，不允许别人评论，还有什么资格叫同行评审期刊

现代研究领域的这个主流理论用大学本科知识就能推翻

目前研究纯理论或者套理论于某一现象的研究是否真的有论文结束时总结的强大意义？

2. 文章支持科学界的一个共识：90%以上的期刊论文都是错误的

仅仅针对一篇文章纠错就是“不礼貌、不专业”，

针对各个期刊错误的综述，更是大逆不道。

科学就是质疑；你好，我好，大家都好就不会有科学

然而，学界普遍认为纠错就是不礼貌、不专业：

https://www.qeios.com/read/5FRZHG

https://doi.org/10.32388/5FRZHG

“While you are demanding that journal papers are wrong, a thorough case study is required. Moreover, the word “research” itself signifies that facts are re-searching. Therefore, every research is relatively correct or wrong according to the era. The writing flow of the manuscript should be more polite and professional.“

Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2

正是怀疑一切的思维方式，使我认识到人类能够取得绝对正确的理论认知

被大量实验文章实证的现行微波吸收理论错的如此彻底，其逻辑错误无法修复

------------------

文章摘译

文章的摘要及其译文

Errors common in publications concerned with microwave absorption were analyzed in detail. These include the development of the wrong impedance matching theory and wrong absorption mechanism, which have led to serious consequences, since these errors have not been corrected over many years. Indeed, material scientists have become accustomed to use these wrong theories and continued to adopt them even though the correct new wave mechanics theory for the microwave absorption film has been developed.

对现代微波吸收论文中常见的错误做了详细分析，其中包括已经建立的阻抗匹配理论和微波吸收机理。由于这些错误多年来没有得到纠正，导致了严重的后果。事实上，材料科学家已经习惯于使用这些错误的理论，即使与之对立的新理论已经建立起来了，他们仍然不接受正确理论并继续使用违背经典物理学的错误理论。

文章的前言及其译文

… it has been estimated that 90% of journal papers contain some unconfirmed material, which necessitates reviews on published results. However, contrary to this ideal, all too often manuscripts questioning established theories are not accepted for publication.

90%以上的期刊论文是错误的，因此对已经发表的文献进行综述很重要。然而，质疑现行理论的稿件往往不能被期刊发表。

Reviews should not just contain an uncritical survey of relevant papers but instead be used to critically assess publications, establishing any significant problems and revealing insights from published data that were previously unrecognized. As a consequence, due to some extent of the prevalence of uncritical reviews, wrong theories can persist for far longer than they should, and valid corrections can take a long time to be accepted.

综述不是已经发表结果的罗列，而应该是批判性地评估，从已经发表的结果中发现前人没有认识到的重要问题。由于这种综述的缺失，错误理论可以持续很长时间，致使正确的新理论很难被学界接受。

综述文章的精髓是从已经发表的东西中看到别人不曾看到的东西

大咖们写的综述有多大的学术价值？

为什么当代出版实践扭曲了科学

科学就是质疑；你好，我好，大家都好就不会有科学

垃圾文章的大量产出导致的问题不仅仅是虚假繁荣

对少数派观点的包容，是人类文明的标志

正确的科学理论都是伟大的理论，没有高低贵贱之分

面对利益和真理，主流科学家更珍视前者

在科学上，多数人的错误（无论是学术上的还是学术道德上的），能不能纠正

不尊重民间科学是现代科学圈的一个严重问题

… This misconception, not corrected over many years, has caused many problems in understanding the physics intrinsic in experimental data and subsequently has led to the development of a wrong theoretical framework involving impedance matching theory, the quarter wavelength theory, and the wrong absorption mechanism for film. A large number of papers have been published in which experimental data have been used unconvincingly to support these wrong theories. Only recently have the problems in microwave absorption theories been identified and corrected by the development of wave mechanics theories which can be used to interpret experimental data accurately. Although the problems have been corrected across several years from different perspectives in many journals, and the subject has attracted substantial attention as indicated by the number of views and downloads, the subject is dealt with only by our group, and the practice of using the wrong theories continues without mention of opposing views. It is interesting to note that the research community does not accept the new theories even though the background is not beyond fundamental physics at the college level, the only stumbling block being that many new concepts are involved when wave mechanics is applied to the film. Material scientists are likely to reject the work without commenting on the main contents of such manuscripts and giving the authors the opportunity to defend their theories.

… 由于这种误解多年来一直不能被纠正，在理解实验数据背后的物理学本质方面造成了许多问题，甚至导致建立了错误的阻抗匹配理论、错误的四分之一波长理论，以及错误的微波吸收机理。已经发表了大量的实验论文用来支持这些错误的理论。这些支持是不能令人信服的。直到最近，由于微波吸收波力学新理论的建立，微波吸收的现代理论中的问题才被发现和纠正。微波吸收波力学新理论可以更准确地理解实验数据。尽管多年来，我们在许多期刊上从不同角度纠正了这些问题，并且从浏览量和下载量来看，这些文章引起了广泛关注，但是主流期刊仍然大量发表使用错误的主流理论的文章，而不提及反对观点。值得注意的是，尽管理解新理论的背景知识并不超出大学基础物理学的水平，阻止人们理解新理论的唯一的障碍是当波力学应用于膜时建立了许多新概念，但是研究界并不接受正确的新理论。材料科学家拒绝相关稿件的发表，往往都不是针对稿件的论证的拒稿意见，并且不给作者任何申辩机会。

一篇颠覆性理论的文章就足以颠覆上万篇文章的实验结论

非常不专业的审稿意见：拒稿不是针对稿件的主要论证，而是根据前言背景拒稿

期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误，但是能高效阻止新思想的传播

期刊同行评审:发现稿件错误很低效，不让颠覆性创新正确稿件发表效率很高

编辑部的逻辑：错误文章比纠错文章有更大的意义

仅仅因为我审稿人不同意你的观点就拒你的稿是同行评审学术不端

明知是错误的文章，仍然坚持发表，是恶劣的学术不端

---------------------

被SCI预警，是坏事吗

https://www.163.com/dy/article/JFRJ81JO0553T4Y3.html

eLife期刊被预警影响SCI，致中国论文减少50%，饶毅发文祝贺主编|学术|sci_网易订阅

“特别关心sci的学者，通常是不是关心科研的人。这话说得非重了，等于指着一些人的鼻子在骂了；这样的话可能也只有饶毅才敢说！”

---------------------------------

… When equipped with the correct wave mechanics, the evidence against impedance matching theory increased and showed that the evidence used previously to support it in fact disproves it.

… 在微波吸收的正确的波力学新理论的武装下，反对阻抗匹配理论的证据大量涌入，并证明了之前用于支持阻抗匹配理论的证据实际上是否定阻抗匹配理论的证据。…

被大量实验文章实证的现行微波吸收理论错的如此彻底，其逻辑错误无法修复

… Experimental results explained superficially with such wrong concepts are commonly found in the literature.…

在期刊文献中经常可以看到用大学初级物理就能辨别的错误概念胡乱解释实验结果的讨论。

实际上深入的研究往往就是应用非常简单和非常基本的原理的结果，说明基础理论在科学研究中的重要性，

只有错误的理论才害怕质疑

仅仅在谁也说服不了谁的情况下，才能产生不同学派间的激烈争论。

如果一方自知没理，就不可能引发明面上的激烈争锋，没理的一方一定要把公开争论压下去。

不管微波吸收的波动力学新理论一方如何叫唤：

在不同的严肃期刊上发表文章，

在科学网上发表博客，

Yue Liu – Kudos: Growing the influence of research

Ethical problems in academic peer review - Peeref

The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned - Peeref

Peer Review Antagonist - Peeref

主流科学家就是不回怼，

他们继续大量发表他们自己的主流理论文章，不提反对观点，

他们继续（提不出学术理由的）拒稿反对观点的稿件。

他们

为了学生毕业，

为了项目结题，

为了发表文章应付考核，

他们继续营造发表错误理论文章的环境和继续进行错误研究方向的项目研究。

明知是错误的文章，仍然坚持发表，是恶劣的学术不端

现行主流微波吸收理论除了几条干巴巴的理论，内容十分干瘪，几乎没有什么数学，上万篇文章的长期胡乱讨论也没有讨论出个猪猫狗有，没有揭示出任何insight。

微波吸收的波动力学新理论才有几年的发展历程和仅仅几十篇文章，是仅仅建立在少数几条数学物理定律的基础之上的理论，就产生了现行主流微波吸收理论无法与之相比的丰富内容，揭示了丰富的insights。

揭示insights就是揭示出以前没有被认识到的自然界中本质的东西。

原因就是

尽管现行主流微波吸收理论建立在琢磨不透的辩证思维基础之上，这个理论根本不得要领，

而

微波吸收的波动力学新理论

虽然只是建立在少数几条初级的数学物理定律和简单的形而上学思维方式的基础之上，

但是这个理论切中要害，所以才能产出丰富的深入骨髓的见解。

从严谨性和丰富内容上看，

微波吸收的波动力学新理论是能够与

经典电磁波理论，

热力学，

磁性物理学，

流体力学，

…

等经典学科理论相媲美的学科理论。

--------------------------------

… It is true that the problems discussed in this work are not complicated. However, they are representative of mistakes that commonly occur in the literature. It is just these simple misunderstandings that have led to the current wrong theories and to the failure to accept the new physics of film based on wave mechanics. This review based on our previous work is intended to attract attention to the problems of current theories over a wide range of research including publications in chemical engineering and other disciplines besides physics and material science.

… 诚然，这里纠正的错误都不涉及很复杂的问题。然而，这些错误在现代期刊论文中非常普遍。正是这些简单的错误没有被纠正，导致了现代微波吸收错误理论的建立，这些错误正在阻止材料科学家接受基于波力学的新理论。基于我们之前已经发表的工作，本综述旨在唤起人们对现代微波吸收错误理论导致的问题的关注。除了材料和物理领域，这些问题还出现在化学工程及其它学科等广泛研究中。

Over the years, we have published a set of papers from different perspectives to overturn the current theoretical framework for microwave absorption. This work provides another perspective on the subject to support our previous conclusions. Our conclusions are reliable since they are based on transmission line theory, while the current theories have been developed on the significant misunderstanding of the theory. That the absorption mechanism of film originates from wave mechanics has already been clearly demonstrated by the derivation of the formula of RL in a manner that has not previously been understood in the field of microwave absorption. Indeed, we only recently rediscovered the importance of transmission line theory in the field of microwave absorption.

多年来，我们从不同的角度发表了一系列论文，颠覆了目前微波吸收的理论框架。这项工作从另一个视角支持我们之前的结果。我们的结论是可靠的，因为这些结论是建立在电磁学的传输线理论基础上的，而现代微波吸收的主流理论是建立在对传输线理论错误理解的基础上的理论。薄膜的微波吸收机理只能用波力学来认知，这一点从反射损失RL公式的传输线理论推导就可以知道。但是传输线理论推导的实质并没有被微波吸收领域的科学家所理解。这种对传输线理论的正确理解是我们最近重新发现的。

Our contributions involve establishing a set of new concepts in which wave mechanics are applied to film. Before they were accepted for publication, these works were often rejected by editors and reviewers because they did not believe that the fundamental theories widely accepted by modern research can be wrong. They believed that accepted theory can only be rejected through a large amount of experimental data, even though such evidence has already been provided from a set of previous papers over the years.

我们的贡献包括建立一套将波力学应用于薄膜微波吸收的新概念。在这些工作被发表之前，这些文章被编辑和审稿人反复拒稿，因为他们不相信被现代研究广泛接受的基本理论竟然是错误的。他们认为，要否定已经被公认的理论，必须有大量的实验数据才能推翻，因为已经被公认的理论已经有海量实验数据支持。实际上我们已经发表的文章提供的证据已经提供足够的证据否定以前的实验支持结果。

一篇颠覆性理论的文章就足以颠覆上万篇文章的实验结论

被大量实验文章实证的现行微波吸收理论错的如此彻底，其逻辑错误无法修复

However, we believe convincing evidence against the established theory should be allowed to be accumulated. Some people believe that the problems for accepted theories are caused by inevitable experimental error. However, our conclusions come from theoretical results, and experimental error is irrelevant. Wave mechanics theory applies to film material whatever its values of ε_r and μ_r. Others believe that impedance matching theory and the wave mechanics theory for microwave absorption can both be correct and state that the reason absorption peaks do not occur when Z_in = Z₀ is just experimental error. However, a theory can only be correct or incorrect, and although there may be other forms of a correct theory for microwave absorption yet to be discovered, what is clear is that the current theory related to impedance matching is wrong because the amplitude and phase conditions for Z_in = Z₀ cannot be met simultaneously and has nothing to do with experimental error. Even though data conforming to impedance matching theory can be found, it is proved theoretically that the logic of the theory is still wrong. Without the guidance of correct theory, it is difficult to reveal these new insights from published experimental data.

另外，应该发表反对公认理论证据以便让这种证据逐步积累。有些人认为，公认理论的问题是由不可避免的实验误差引起的。然而，我们的结论来自理论结果，理论结论与实验误差无关。对于e_r和m_r为任何实验取值的膜材料，波力学理论都适用。一些人认为阻抗匹配理论和微波吸收的波力学理论都是正确的。然而，一个理论只能是正确的或不正确的，尽管可能有不同形式的微波吸收正确理论有待发现，但很明显，目前与阻抗匹配相关的理论是错误的，因为微波吸收峰没有发生在Z_in=Z₀处是因为Z_in=Z₀的振幅和相位条件不能同时满足，这个理论结果与实验误差无关。尽管有符合阻抗匹配理论的数据，但从理论上证明了该理论解释这样的实验数据的逻辑仍然是错误的。没有正确微波吸收的波动力学新理论的指导，很难从已发表的实验数据中揭示出这些新的见解。

文章第二节前言部分段落及译文

CORRECTIONS OF COMMON ERRORS IN CURRENT THEORIES OF MICROWAVE ABSORPTION CAUSED BY CONFUSING INPUT AND CHARACTERISTICIMPEDANCES

第二节微波吸收现代主流理论中，混淆输入阻抗和特性阻抗引起的常见错误及其纠正校正

Microwave absorption is widely studied. However, there are many problems that repeatedly occurred. These problems, not corrected in time, have led to the establishment of the wrong theories. The wrong concepts established from these errors also prevent scientists from accepting the newly established correct theory based on wave mechanics.

微波吸收被广泛研究。然而，许多问题在现代研究论文中反复出现。由于这些问题没有及时纠正，导致了建立错误的理论。从这些错误中建立的概念也阻碍了科学家接受基于波力学的新建立的正确理论。

Peer review is designed to avoid the publication of wrong concepts, but it was proved that it is inefficient in detecting even the simplest errors while quite efficient in suppressing the dissemination of new ideas if such ideas do not conform with the views of the reviewers. For example, Z_in/Z₀ in Figure S3 in ref (118) should be Z_in defined by eqs 1 and 2 in that paper, but it is not detected by the reviewers. In that paper, eq 19 is wrong and inconsistent with eq 2. Another error that has not been detected by reviewers in ref (118) is apparent in its eq 5. It should be noted that S_x, S_y, and Z_S in ref (118) are s₁₁, s₂₁ for film without a metal back and for Z_M, respectively. It commonly occurs in publications that Z_M is defined wrongly as input impedance, and Z_in is defined vaguely by impedance.

同行评审旨在避免发表错误的概念，但事实证明，即使是最简单的错误，同行评审也无法有效地发现，而如果新观点不符合评审者的立场，同行评审在阻止新观点的传播方面却非常有效。例如，文献118中图S3中的Z_in/Z₀应该是该论文中等式1和2定义的Z_in，但审稿人没有发现。在那篇论文中，等式19是错误的，与等式2不一致。文献118的审稿人也未发现。文章的式5显然不对，审稿人也没看出来。文章中的S_x、S_y和Z_S分别为s₁₁、s₂₁，适用于无金属背衬膜和Z_M。出版物中经常出现Z_M被错误地定义为输入阻抗， Z_in被模糊地定义为阻抗的情况。

In the paper of Hou et al., experimental data were presented to support their results from wrong equations. Another wrong equation for Δ was also presented by Li et al., and much experimental data were presented in their paper to support it. However, it has been shown that such support is not achievable.

在Hou等人的论文中，用大量实验数据支持他们错误公式。Li等人提出了另一个错误的公式，他们也提供了大量实验数据支持他们的错误公式。然而，事实证明，这些支持都是不站不住脚的。

It is true that many papers have been published supporting the current mainstream microwave absorption theory, and such papers still dominate publications even after the theory was challenged. As soon as the opposite view was proposed, profuse amounts of new evidence have been identified beyond a quick review. The different perspectives of new evidence show that a wrong theory is wrong and a correct theory is correct in every aspect.

确实，已经发表了许多支持当前主流微波吸收理论的论文，即使在该理论被证明是错的之后，这些错误论文仍然主导着主流出版物。，反对理论一经提出，大量新的证据就被发现。这些证据从不同角度说明，错误的理论在各个方面都是错误的，正确的理论在各个方面都是正确的。

文章的结论及其译文

The main theories in the current research concerned with microwave absorption are inadequate. Although the correct theory has been rediscovered from transmission line theory and been developed further to reveal the physics of the film, it has not attracted the attention of researchers, and papers using the wrong theories continue to be published. The problems in recently published papers have been analyzed to attract the attention of the community. The issues discussed are important since the wrong theories still dominate the field. Although the wrong theories have a huge influence, corrections can be made from simple principles covered at the college level.

现代研究中的微波吸收的主流理论是错的。尽管微波吸收的波动力学新理论是对传输线理论的重新发现，并是对传输线理论的进一步发展以揭示膜的内在物理性质，但这个新理论并没有引起研究人员的重视，使用错误理论的论文仍在继续发表。对最近发表的论文中存在的问题进行了分析，以引起学界的关注。所讨论的问题很重要，因为错误的理论仍然主导着这个领域。尽管现行错误理论有巨大的影响，但是这些错误可以用大学层面的简单道理进行纠正。

-----

科学就是质疑

张双南：质疑是目前中国科技界最缺乏的科学精神

科学的“有罪推定”

质疑是认识科学本质的过程

质疑是科学发展的驱动力和守护者

为什么质疑是科学的标配：听得进不同意见不是大度而是智慧-清华大学社会科学学院

北大教授陈衍景：“少数派”在质疑中执着前行

3. 微波吸收的波动力学新理论是现代建立的能与牛顿时代建立的学学理论相媲美的学科理论

为什么微波吸收的波动力学新理论能推翻现行微波吸收主流理论

1）现行微波吸收主流理论能解释的实验结果，微波吸收的波动力学新理论都能解释，而且解释的更好；

2）现行微波吸收主流理论不能解释的实验结果，微波吸收的波动力学新理论也能解释；

3）对于现行微波吸收主流理论和微波吸收的波动力学新理论都能解释的实验现象，现行微波吸收主流理论的解释不符合逻辑。

4）现行微波吸收主流理论基本不需要数学（也有一些错误的数学物理推理文章），依靠辩证逻辑推理；微波吸收的波动力学新理论建立在严格的数学物理基础之上，采用形而上学的逻辑推理。

我们因为推翻微波吸收的现代主流理论，被主流科学家扣上“民科”的帽子。

但是从符合经典物理学的角度看，我们应该是正统学派。坚持微波吸收现行主流理论的主流科学家才是与正统物理学格格不入的学派。

现代科学几乎没有建立能与牛顿时代建立的学科理论相媲美的理论。

微波吸收的波动力学新理论

是严格的而内容丰富的学科理论；

是现代建立的

能与牛顿时代建立的学学理论相媲美

的学科理论。

4. 学术界有真正做学问的学者

颠覆性现行主流理论的创新很难被期刊接受，很多没有经过外审就被拒稿。

颠覆性创新的作者都曾沮丧到怀疑这个世界上是否有真正做学问的学者，几乎丧失继续投稿的信心。

同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障

同行评审就是你的同行有能力阻止世界了解你的工作

“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

的确，相当多数的学者道德水平和学术水平都不能与科学进步的潮流相适应，所以科学往往是少数人推动的，科学问题不能通过投票解决。

上海交通大学杨枫教授：如果学术界是个草台班子，那就一定有草包

不要高估自己的科学素养

千万不要高估科学家的素质

现代科学研究者的理论水平极低

但是这个世界总是有很少数的人是真正做学问的人。

做出颠覆性创新的人是少数，颠覆性的工作遇到真正做学问的人做责任编辑、真正做学问的人做的审稿人，概率更低，但是这种概率还是有的。

不要把自己侥幸成功视为理所当然，要为那些还在抗争主流压力的颠覆性创新者做点什么以回馈社会的赐予

-------------------------------------------------------------------