The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials
How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption
Response Letter to arXiv Moderation Decision
Commentary on Qeios Rejection: Documenting the Systematic Suppression of Paradigm-Challenging Research
From Scientific Challenge to System Critique: How Academic Journals Coordinate Resistance Against Paradigm-Challenging Research
The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials: How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption
Yue Liu1, *, Ying Liu1, Michael G. B. Drew2
1College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com (Yue Liu), yingliusd@163.com (Ying Liu)
2School of Chemistry, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AD, UK, m.g.b.drew@reading.ac.uk
* Corresponding author
ORCID:
Yue Liu: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730
Ying Liu: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9862-5786
Michael G. B. Drew: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8687-3440
Abstract
The distinction between films and materials represents a fundamental conceptual clarity that is immediately apparent in everyday English usage and should be rigorously maintained in scientific discourse. However, the microwave absorption community has systematically confused these categorically different concepts for decades, leading to the development of the theoretically flawed impedance matching theory. This paper demonstrates that films and materials exhibit fundamentally different electromagnetic behaviors: materials possess intrinsic properties (εᵣ, μᵣ) that govern bulk electromagnetic responses, while films function as electromagnetic devices that exploit material properties through geometric configuration to achieve emergent behaviors such as oscillatory reflection loss patterns and interference-based absorption mechanisms. The reviewer criticism that films are merely "materials with small thickness" exemplifies the category error that enabled impedance matching theory's logical contradictions—simultaneously claiming maximum absorption occurs when all incident energy enters the film while requiring energy reflection for absorption measurement. Wave mechanics theory resolves these contradictions by properly recognizing that films and materials require separate theoretical frameworks: material behavior follows monotonic attenuation with increasing thickness, while film behavior exhibits complex interference patterns dependent on geometric configuration and backing conditions. The microwave absorption community's resistance to this obvious distinction, demanding justification for why clearly different concepts should be distinguished, represents institutional defense of decades-old theoretical errors rather than genuine scientific inquiry. Scientific progress requires conceptual precision that acknowledges films as engineered electromagnetic devices rather than scaled material systems, enabling proper theoretical analysis and technological optimization. This conceptual clarity reveals both the necessity of film-material distinction and the theoretical power that emerges from abandoning decades of conceptual confusion in favor of empirically adequate and logically consistent theoretical frameworks.
Keywords
Film-material distinction, microwave absorption, wave mechanics theory, impedance matching theory, conceptual clarity, electromagnetic devices, theoretical frameworks, paradigm resistance, scientific publishing, peer review bias, institutional inertia, device physics, materials science, reflection loss, electromagnetic interference, transmission line theory, scientific methodology, theoretical error correction, academic publishing reform
Introduction: The Self-Evident Nature of Film-Material Distinction
The distinction between films and materials is immediately apparent in everyday English usage and should be even more rigorously maintained in scientific discourse. Yet the microwave absorption community has systematically confused these fundamentally different concepts for decades, leading to the development of fundamentally flawed theoretical frameworks. When researchers who have perpetuated this confusion for years suddenly claim that we have not adequately explained the distinction between films and materials, they reveal not a deficiency in our exposition, but their own deep-seated conceptual misunderstanding that has become institutionalized within their field.
The irony is profound: a community that has spent decades conflating films with materials now demands that we justify why these obviously different concepts should be distinguished. This represents not genuine scientific inquiry, but defensive rationalization of theoretical errors that emerged directly from this fundamental conceptual confusion.
The Obvious Linguistic and Conceptual Distinction
Everyday Language Understanding
In ordinary English usage, films and materials represent categorically different concepts:
· Material: A substance with inherent physical and chemical properties (steel, silicon dioxide, polypropylene)
· Film: A thin layer or coating of material, typically with specific geometric constraints and applications (protective films, thin film coatings, membrane filters)
No English speaker would confuse aluminum (material) with aluminum foil (film), or confuse plastic (material) with plastic wrap (film). The distinction is so fundamental that questioning it reveals either linguistic incompetence or willful obfuscation.
Scientific Terminology Precision
Scientific discourse demands even greater precision than everyday language. In materials science, physics, and engineering:
· Materials possess intrinsic properties: density, permittivity (εᵣ), permeability (μᵣ), conductivity, mechanical strength
· Films exhibit both material properties AND geometric/structural characteristics: thickness, surface area, backing configurations, interface effects
The electromagnetic behavior of films depends on both their material composition AND their geometric configuration—a dependence that demonstrates their fundamental difference from bulk materials.
The Reviewer's Revealing Confusion
The "Small Thickness" Fallacy
The reviewer's question—"Isn't it [a film] a material that has a very small thickness?" [1] —exposes the fundamental conceptual error that has plagued the microwave absorption field for decades. This reasoning represents a category mistake equivalent to asking:
· "Isn't a building just concrete with a particular shape?"
· "Isn't a circuit just copper with a specific configuration?"
· "Isn't a musical instrument just metal with particular dimensions?"
The thickness argument reveals complete misunderstanding of how geometric configuration creates emergent properties that transcend material composition. A film is not merely "material with small thickness" [1] — it is a device engineered to exploit specific electromagnetic phenomena that emerge from the interaction between material properties and geometric constraints.
The Interface Confusion
The reviewer's insistence that "reflection loss is defined on the interface between it and free space" [1] whether dealing with films or bulk materials demonstrates profound theoretical confusion. This statement conflates:
· Material interfaces (bulk material boundaries)
· Device interfaces (engineered film surfaces with specific backing configurations)
These represent entirely different electromagnetic phenomena requiring different theoretical treatments—exactly the distinction that wave mechanics theory properly recognizes while impedance matching theory catastrophically conflates.
The Historical Development of Theoretical Errors
How Conceptual Confusion Enabled Theoretical Mistakes
The impedance matching theory's fundamental errors emerged directly from the systematic confusion between films and materials that the reviewer's comments perfectly exemplify:
1. Misapplication of Material Theory: Treating film behavior as simply scaled material behavior
2. Geometric Irrelevance Assumption: Ignoring the crucial role of film thickness and backing configurations
3. Interface Conflation: Applying bulk material interface theory to engineered film devices
4. Emergent Property Denial: Refusing to recognize that films exhibit electromagnetic behaviors absent in their constituent materials
Each of these errors stems from the fundamental failure to recognize that films and materials require different theoretical frameworks—precisely the distinction our wave mechanics theory properly implements. [2 – 7]
The "Material Field" Rationalization
The claim that "in the field of absorbing material, people usually default the research object as the film made from the material" represents post-hoc rationalization of decades-old conceptual errors. This argument essentially admits:
1. The field has been systematically imprecise in its terminology
2. Researchers have conflated fundamentally different physical systems
3. Theoretical frameworks developed under these false assumptions
4. The community now defends these errors rather than correcting them
Scientific fields do not have license to redefine fundamental concepts to justify theoretical mistakes. When a field systematically misuses terminology, the solution is conceptual correction, not defensive rationalization.
The Scientific Imperative for Conceptual Clarity
Why Films and Materials Must Be Distinguished
Scientific accuracy demands recognition that films and materials exhibit fundamentally different electromagnetic behaviors:
Material Properties (Intrinsic):
· Permittivity (εᵣ) and permeability (μᵣ) values
· Dielectric and magnetic loss mechanisms
· Conductivity and polarization responses
· Temperature and frequency dependencies
Film Properties (Emergent):
· Reflection loss (|RL|) patterns with thickness variation
· Standing wave formation and interference effects
· Backing configuration dependencies
· Multiple reflection and transmission phenomena
These property categories are not simply "scaled versions" of each other—they represent qualitatively different physical phenomena requiring distinct theoretical treatments.
The Device Physics Perspective
Films function as electromagnetic devices that exploit material properties to achieve specific performance objectives. This device functionality emerges from the interaction between:
· Material electromagnetic parameters (εᵣ, μᵣ)
· Geometric configuration (thickness, area, backing)
· Interface physics (multiple reflections, phase relationships)
· Boundary conditions (metallic backing, impedance discontinuities)
Understanding films as devices rather than mere "thin materials" enables proper theoretical analysis and technological optimization—exactly what wave mechanics theory accomplishes while impedance matching theory fails to achieve.
The Theoretical Consequences of Conceptual Errors
How Confusion Generated the Impedance Matching Theory
The impedance matching theory's logical contradictions stem directly from film-material conceptual confusion:
Fundamental Contradiction: The theory simultaneously claims:
1. Maximum absorption occurs when all incident energy enters the film (impedance matching condition)
2. Absorption measurement requires energy reflection (reflection loss |RL| calculations)
This contradiction emerged because theorists conflated:
· Material absorption (energy dissipation during wave propagation)
· Film absorption (interference-based energy extraction from incident waves)
Wave mechanics theory resolves this contradiction by recognizing that films and materials operate through different physical mechanisms requiring separate theoretical frameworks.
Experimental Evidence for Film-Material Distinction
Empirical observations consistently demonstrate that films and materials exhibit different electromagnetic behaviors:
Film Behavior:
· |RL| oscillates with thickness variation at fixed frequency
· Absorption peaks occur at specific thickness values
· Multiple peaks possible within single frequency range
· Backing configuration critically affects performance
Material Behavior:
· Monotonic attenuation with increasing thickness
· No oscillatory absorption patterns
· Performance depends only on path length and material parameters
· Independent of backing configuration (in thick samples)
These observational differences provide experimental validation that films and materials represent distinct physical systems requiring different theoretical treatments.
Philosophical Foundations: Metaphysical Idealism vs. Dialectical Materialism in Microwave Absorption Theory
The Wave Mechanics Theory: A Metaphysical Idealist Approach
The wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption represents a fundamentally metaphysical idealist approach (唯心主义形而上学) to understanding electromagnetic phenomena. This theoretical framework captures the essential nature of wave superposition as the fundamental mechanism underlying film microwave absorption, employing mathematical formalism to reveal the underlying principles that govern all electromagnetic absorption behaviors.
By recognizing that wave interference constitutes the essence of microwave absorption,[8,9] the wave mechanics theory demonstrates the power of metaphysical thinking to simplify complex phenomena. Whether a film exhibits thin-film absorption characteristics or thick-film material-like behavior, the unified mathematical treatment through reflection loss |RL| parameters—determined by permittivity, permeability, and film thickness—reveals that absorption peaks result from destructive interference.[10, 11] This theoretical unification exemplifies how grasping fundamental principles makes complex phenomena comprehensible.
The Impedance Matching Theory: A Dialectical Materialist Confusion
In contrast, impedance matching theory adopts a superficial dialectical materialist (唯物辩证法) worldview that fails to penetrate the essential nature of microwave absorption phenomena. Despite appearing to provide explanations for experimental results through dialectical analysis, impedance matching theory actually offers only surface-level, shallow interpretations that clarify nothing while making simple phenomena unnecessarily complex.
The fundamental error of impedance matching theory lies in its failure to grasp essential principles: it incorrectly attributes |RL|-characterized microwave absorption to material structural effects, erroneously conflating film geometric dimensions (such as thickness) with material structural influences on absorption.[12] This conceptual confusion—treating film thickness effects as material structural effects—demonstrates the theory's inability to discern the true nature of the physical phenomena (clearly film structural influences, yet misinterpreted as material structural influences). No amount of dialectical explanation can yield useful conclusions when the fundamental essence remains unrecognized.
The Quarter-Wavelength Theory: Misunderstanding Fundamental Relationships
The quarter-wavelength theory exemplifies this philosophical confusion by incorrectly explaining absorption peaks—which result from destructive wave interference—as material resonance absorption occurring at quarter-wavelength positions. This theory defines "matching thickness" and "matching frequency" concepts while erroneously attributing wave interference-induced absorption peaks to material resonance phenomena, fundamentally misunderstanding the physical essence. [13, 14]
The critical insight that mainstream scientists resist acknowledging is the inverse frequency-wavelength relationship [15]: when permittivity and permeability remain frequency-independent, frequency and wavelength maintain a simple inverse proportional relationship. The wave mechanics theory correctly identifies this essential relationship, while mainstream scientists persist in using the flawed quarter-wavelength theory rather than accepting the correct inverse frequency-wavelength correlation.
Methodological Implications: Essence vs. Appearance
This philosophical distinction has profound methodological implications for scientific understanding:
Metaphysical Idealist Approach (Wave Mechanics):
· Identifies fundamental principles underlying electromagnetic phenomena
· Employs mathematical formalism to reveal essential relationships
· Unifies diverse observations under coherent theoretical frameworks
· Simplifies complex phenomena through recognition of underlying unity
· Predicts novel behaviors based on fundamental principles
Dialectical Materialist Approach (Impedance Matching):
·
The choice between these theoretical approaches represents more than technical preference—it reflects fundamental philosophical commitments about the nature of scientific understanding. Wave mechanics theory demonstrates that mathematical idealism can reveal hidden unities within apparently complex phenomena, while impedance matching theory shows how materialist dialectics can obscure essential relationships through excessive attention to superficial complexity.
The resistance of the mainstream scientific community to wave mechanics theory illustrates how philosophical precommitments can impede recognition of fundamental insights. Despite extensive empirical validation and logical demonstration of impedance matching theory's contradictions, the community's attachment to dialectical materialist approaches prevents acknowledgment of the superior explanatory power achieved through metaphysical idealist methodology.
Educational and Cultural Implications
This philosophical analysis reveals broader patterns in contemporary scientific education and research methodology:
The Decline of Metaphysical Thinking: Modern scientific training emphasizes empirical data collection over theoretical insight, producing researchers incapable of recognizing fundamental principles underlying complex phenomena. [16]
The Materialism Bias: Contemporary academic culture privileges materialist explanations over idealist insights, even when idealist approaches demonstrate superior explanatory power and predictive accuracy. [17]
The Complexity Fetish: Academic institutions reward complex theoretical constructions over simple, elegant solutions that reveal underlying unity—exactly the opposite of genuine scientific advancement.
The Innovation Paradox: While claiming to value innovation, scientific institutions systematically reject theoretical frameworks that challenge established paradigms, regardless of their logical consistency or empirical adequacy.
The Historical Context of Philosophical Approaches
Scientific history demonstrates that major theoretical advances typically emerge from metaphysical idealist approaches that recognize fundamental unity underlying apparent diversity:
·
Each of these revolutionary frameworks employed mathematical idealism to penetrate beyond surface phenomena and reveal essential relationships—exactly the methodology exemplified by wave mechanics theory in electromagnetic absorption.
Contemporary Relevance and Future Implications
The philosophical foundations of competing theoretical approaches have direct implications for technological development and scientific progress:
Wave Mechanics Approach: Enables rational design of electromagnetic devices based on fundamental interference principles, leading to optimized performance and novel technological applications.
Impedance Matching Approach: Perpetuates trial-and-error methodology based on empirical correlation rather than theoretical understanding, limiting technological advancement and innovation.
The broader scientific community's choice between these approaches will determine whether electromagnetic absorption research advances toward genuine theoretical understanding or remains trapped in empirical confusion.
The Philosophical Stakes
The conflict between wave mechanics and impedance matching theories represents a fundamental philosophical choice between idealist and materialist approaches to scientific understanding. Wave mechanics theory demonstrates the power of mathematical idealism to reveal essential unity underlying complex electromagnetic phenomena, while impedance matching theory illustrates how dialectical materialism can perpetuate conceptual confusion through attachment to surface appearances.
Scientific progress depends on recognizing that mathematical formalism can reveal fundamental principles that transcend empirical complexity. The wave mechanics theory's success in unifying diverse electromagnetic absorption phenomena through elegant mathematical treatment validates the metaphysical idealist approach and challenges the contemporary scientific community's bias toward materialist explanations.
The ultimate validation of these competing philosophical approaches will come through technological applications and predictive accuracy—domains where wave mechanics theory's recognition of fundamental principles provides decisive advantages over impedance matching theory's superficial complexity.
The Defensive Psychology of Established Fields
Institutional Resistance to Conceptual Correction
The microwave absorption community's resistance to film-material distinction reflects broader patterns of institutional resistance to paradigm-changing insights:
Sunk Cost Fallacy: Decades of research based on flawed conceptual foundations
Reputational Protection: Acknowledgment of errors threatens established careers
Theoretical Inertia: Existing frameworks resist modification despite logical flaws
Educational Investment: Textbooks, courses, and training programs built on incorrect concepts
Rather than acknowledging and correcting fundamental conceptual errors, the community demands that challengers justify why obviously different concepts should be distinguished—a remarkable inversion of scientific responsibility.
The Burden-Shifting Strategy
By claiming that we have failed to adequately explain the film-material distinction, reviewers attempt to shift the burden of proof away from defending their own theoretically flawed conflation. This strategy:
1. Avoids engaging with the logical contradictions in impedance matching theory
2. Deflects attention from the wave mechanics theory's superior explanatory power
3. Places defensive burden on challengers rather than theory defenders
4. Maintains institutional orthodoxy through procedural objections
Scientific discourse should evaluate theoretical frameworks based on their logical consistency and empirical adequacy, not on whether challengers can overcome reviewers' conceptual resistance.
The Path Forward: Conceptual Clarity and Theoretical Progress
Restoring Scientific Precision
Scientific advancement requires acknowledgment that films and materials represent fundamentally different physical systems:
For Materials Research: Focus on intrinsic electromagnetic parameters (εᵣ, μᵣ) and their dependencies
For Film Research: Analyze emergent device properties (|RL|, interference effects) and their geometric dependencies
For Theoretical Development: Maintain clear conceptual distinctions to prevent category errors
Wave mechanics theory provides the proper theoretical framework by recognizing these distinctions and developing appropriate analytical tools for each physical system.
Educational Reform Imperative
The microwave absorption field requires comprehensive educational reform to correct decades of conceptual confusion:
· Textbook revision to properly distinguish films from materials
· Curriculum development emphasizing device physics alongside materials science
· Research training focusing on conceptual precision and theoretical rigor
· Peer review education to prevent conceptual errors from perpetuating through literature
Only through systematic conceptual correction can the field move beyond the theoretical errors that have impeded technological advancement for decades.
Conclusion: The Obviousness of Necessary Distinctions
The distinction between films and materials is so fundamental that questioning it reveals either willful obtuseness or profound conceptual confusion. When a scientific field systematically conflates obviously different concepts for decades, then demands that challengers justify why these concepts should be distinguished, it demonstrates institutional failure rather than challenger deficiency.
The microwave absorption community's resistance to film-material distinction represents a textbook case of how conceptual errors become institutionally entrenched, protected by defensive rationalization rather than corrected through scientific inquiry. The impedance matching theory's logical contradictions emerged directly from this conceptual confusion, while wave mechanics theory's superior explanatory power stems from proper recognition of fundamental physical distinctions.
Scientific progress requires conceptual courage—the willingness to acknowledge and correct fundamental errors rather than defending them through procedural deflection. The film-material distinction is not a subtle philosophical point requiring extensive justification—it is an obvious reality that proper scientific theory must acknowledge and incorporate.
The question is not whether films and materials should be distinguished, but whether the microwave absorption community possesses the scientific integrity to abandon decades of theoretical error in favor of conceptually coherent and empirically adequate theoretical frameworks. Wave mechanics theory provides exactly such a framework, revealing both the necessity of film-material distinction and the theoretical power that emerges from proper conceptual precision.
The obviousness of this distinction makes the community's resistance all the more revealing of how institutional inertia can impede scientific progress even when the path forward is clear.
References:
References:
1. Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance, https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/analysis-of-the-physica-scripta-editorial
2. Liu, Yue, et al., "Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges," arXiv:2508.06522v3 (2025)
3. Various peer-reviewed publications demonstrating the theoretical and empirical superiority of wave mechanics framework over impedance matching theory in electromagnetic absorption analysis, https://yueliusd.substack.com
4. Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48
5. Liu Y, Lin Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. 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
6. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020 , 243 : 122624
7. Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew Review: Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections A focused review, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2025, 64(7), 3635–3650, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04544
8. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model-part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022, 97 (1), 015806. DOI: 10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb1.
9. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. A Re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The real mechanism. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2022, 291, 126601. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126601
10. Liu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption -- Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material. Surfaces and Interfaces 2023, 40, 103022. DOI: 10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103022
11. Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. Theoretical insights manifested by wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption — Part 2: A perspective based on the responses from DeepSeek. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v3
12. Cheng, J.; Zhang, H.; Ning, M.; Raza, H.; Zhang, D.; Zheng, G.; Zheng, Q.; Che, R. Emerging Materials and Designs for Low‐ and Multi‐Band Electromagnetic Wave Absorbers: The Search for Dielectric and Magnetic Synergy? Advanced Functional Materials 2022, 32 (23), 2200123. DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202200123
13. Hou, Z.-L.; Gao, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, G. A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing. Carbon 2024, 222, 118935. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2024.118935
14. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2025, 64 (7), 3635–3650. DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04544
15. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 3: Inverse relationship. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2022, 290, 126521. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126521
16. Liu, Y. The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5376778
Liu, Y. Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5379953