Preprint -- 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

Preprint

Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying and Drew, Michael G. B., The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials: How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption (September 17, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5498078 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5498078

The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials: How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption

Yue Liu^{1, *}, 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—claiming maximum absorption occurs when all incident energy enters the film. 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^{1, 2}

· Films exhibit both material properties AND geometric/structural characteristics: thickness, surface area, backing configurations, interface effects³

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.^{3, 4}

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?” ⁵ —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”⁵ — 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” ⁵ 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.^{6, 7}

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 behavior⁸

2. Geometric Irrelevance Assumption: Ignoring the crucial role of film thickness and backing configurations⁹

3. Interface Conflation: Applying bulk material interface theory to engineered film devices⁶

4. Emergent Property Denial: Refusing to recognize that films exhibit electromagnetic behaviors absent in their constituent materials³

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.^{10, 11}

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)^{1, 2}:

· Permittivity (εᵣ) and permeability (μᵣ) values

· Dielectric and magnetic loss mechanisms

· Conductivity and polarization responses

· Temperature and frequency dependencies

Film Properties (Emergent)^{3, 4, 9}:

· 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.^{4, 9, 12} 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^{11, 12}:

1. Maximum absorption occurs when all incident energy enters the film (impedance matching condition, involving characteristic impedance of material Z_M)

2. Absorption measurement requires energy reflection (reflection loss |RL| calculations, involving input impedance of film Z_in)

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.¹³ 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,^{9, 14} 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.^{12, 15} 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.^{7, 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^{9, 14}—as material resonance absorption occurring at quarter-wavelength positions.^{16, 17} 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.^{7, 16, 17}

The critical insight that mainstream scientists resist acknowledging is the inverse frequency-wavelength relationship¹⁸: 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.

Mechanistic Distinction Between Film and Material Absorption in Microwave Theory

When microwaves are absorbed by a film, the energy is ultimately deposited within the film’s material. Crucially, however, this absorption does not arise from the material’s intrinsic attenuation power alone; rather, it results from the film structure compelling the material to absorb a precisely determined quantity of microwave energy via wave interference mechanisms. For metal-backed films, the absorbed energy, as dictated by energy conservation,⁸ is expressed as . The central insight provided by wave mechanics theory is that such absorption is governed by the interference (wave superposition) of waves reflected at the film’s parallel interfaces, rather than by classical material attenuation occurring along the propagation path.^{11, 19}

Although wave mechanics theory demonstrates that absorption in films is controlled by wave superposition instead of bulk attenuation, the imaginary components of permittivity ( ) and permeability ( ) must remain nonzero for absorption to occur.²⁰ While material damping—represented by these imaginary parts—is a necessary condition, the fundamental absorption process in films differs from that in bulk materials. Specifically, it is the structural characteristics of the film that govern the amount of energy absorbed through wave interference. This critical distinction underscores the importance of device engineering: engineered film structures facilitate emergent absorption properties that surpass the limitations inherent to the raw material.

The conventional definitions of matching film thickness and resonance frequency, which conflate aspects of impedance matching and quarter-wavelength theory, fail to elucidate the true origin of multiple absorption peaks in films. The actual nature of these multi-peak phenomena is the inverse relationship between film thickness and frequency, assuming and are relatively frequency-insensitive.¹⁸ These peaks arise fundamentally from destructive interference of waves reflected within the film’s parallel interfaces.

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):

· Focuses on surface phenomena without penetrating essential relationships

· Generates complex explanations that obscure rather than clarify

· Conflates distinct physical systems (films vs. materials)

· Relies on post-hoc rationalizations rather than predictive frameworks

· Perpetuates conceptual confusion through defensive theorizing

The Philosophical Significance of Theoretical Choice

The choice between these theoretical approaches represents more than technical preference—it reflects fundamental philosophical commitments about the nature of scientific understanding.¹³ 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.^21-24

The Materialism Bias: Contemporary academic culture privileges materialist explanations over idealist insights, even when idealist approaches demonstrate superior explanatory power and predictive accuracy.²¹

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 diversity¹³:

· Newton’s gravitational theory unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics through mathematical formalism

· Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory revealed the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena

· Einstein’s relativity demonstrated the underlying unity of space, time, matter, and energy

· Quantum mechanics revealed the wave-particle unity underlying atomic phenomena

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.

Fundamental Physical Errors Masquerading as Innovation in High-Impact Publications

The neglect of theoretical training among contemporary researchers has led to a disturbing phenomenon wherein violations of basic physical principles are presented as innovative contributions in prestigious SCI journals.²⁵ This theoretical poverty has created an academic environment where peer reviewers and editors, lacking adequate foundational knowledge, cannot distinguish between genuine scientific advancement and fundamental conceptual errors.^{26, 27}

A particularly egregious example appears in the high-impact publication by Hou et al. (2024) in Carbon (Impact Factor >10), titled “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing”.¹⁶ This paper contains multiple fundamental errors that undergraduate physics students should readily identify, yet it was published in a premier materials science journal and continues to accumulate citations while correction papers face systematic rejection.²⁸

The authors commit several basic theoretical errors that they present as novel insights. First, the paper presents the erroneous concept that material permittivity (εᵣ) and permeability (μᵣ) vary with film thickness (Figure 4 in their paper). This violates the fundamental definition of material properties, which are intrinsic characteristics independent of sample geometry. The confusion between material parameters and device characteristics represents a basic conceptual error that undermines their entire theoretical framework.

Second, the authors incorrectly interpret reflection loss (|RL|) peaks as resulting from incident and reflected wave cancellation, treating wave superposition as simple energy addition: “When the sum of the reflected wave energy of the two interfaces is equal to the incident wave energy and their phases are opposite, the EMW will be completely absorbed.” This demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of wave mechanics and energy conservation principles.⁶

Perhaps most remarkably, the paper states: “For an EMW absorber with a high loss material as a backplate, two interfacial reflections are similar to that with a metal backplate. The quarter-wavelength theory is also applicable if the metal backplate is replaced by a high loss material.” This assertion reveals profound ignorance of electromagnetic boundary conditions, as metal backplates provide total reflection while high-loss materials provide total absorption—fundamentally different physical processes that cannot be treated equivalently.

The systematic nature of this problem becomes evident when examining the fate of correction papers. Despite rigorous peer-reviewed publications addressing these errors—such as “Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections: A focused review” published in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research⁷—the scientific community continues citing the erroneous original work while ignoring corrections.²⁸ This pattern indicates that the theoretical incompetence extends far beyond individual researchers to encompass entire research communities that lack the foundational knowledge necessary to evaluate competing theoretical claims.^{25, 29-31}

The persistence of such fundamental errors in high-impact publications, combined with systematic suppression of correction papers and continued propagation of flawed concepts through citation networks,^{32, 33} demonstrates that modern academia suffers from widespread theoretical poverty that threatens the integrity of scientific knowledge production.^{34, 35} When peer review systems consistently fail to identify undergraduate-level errors while treating violations of basic physics as innovative contributions, the entire quality control mechanism of scientific publishing has fundamentally failed.

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.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships

that may have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Preprint

The preprint of this work is presented at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5498078

References:

(1) Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.122624.

(2) Liu, Y.; Lin, Y.; Zhao, K.; Drew, M. G. B.; 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, e122615. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122615.

(3) Liu, Y.; Yin, X.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material. Non-Metallic Material Science 2023, 5 (1), 38 - 48. DOI: 10.30564/nmms.v5i1.5602.

(4) Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films - Distinguishing film from material. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2024, 593, 171850. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2024.171850.

(5) Liu, Y. Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance. 2025. https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/analysis-of-the-physica-scripta-editorial (accessed.

(6) Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. A physics investigation of impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film— Part 2: Problem analyses. Journal of Applied Physics 2023, 134 (4), 045304. DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612.

(7) 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.

(8) Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. A Re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 1: Energy conservation. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2022, 290, 126576. DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126576.

(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.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges. arXiv:2508.06522v2 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522.

(11) Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. Theoretical insights manifested by wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption—Part 1: A theoretical perspective. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v4.

(12) 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.

(13) Liu, Y. The Philosophical Battle Between Dialectical Materialism and Idealistic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Analysis Through the Lens of Scientific Method. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5447975.

(14) 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.

(15) 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

(16) 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.

(17) 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.

(18) 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.

(19) Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: A short review. Optics and Laser Technology 2024, 178, 111211. DOI: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2024.111211.

(20) Liu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Unexpected results in Microwave absorption -- Part 2：Angular effects and the wave cancellation theory. Surfaces and Interfaces 2023, 40, 103024. DOI: 10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103024.

(21) Liu, Y. Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5379953.

(22) 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.

(23) Liu, Y. The Primacy of Theoretical Foundations: Why Textbooks and Monographs Matter more than Journal Literature in Scientific Progress. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5465615.

(24) Liu, Y. The Supremacy of Theoretical Innovation: Why Establishing Discipline Theories Surpasses Nobel Prize Achievements. preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202509.0504.v1.

(25) Liu, Y. The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research. 2025. https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/the-theoretical-poverty-of-modern?utm_source=publication-search (accessed.

(26) Liu, Y. Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories. 2025.

(27) Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5434337.

(28) Liu, Y. Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5392646.

(29) Liu, Y. The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1.

(30) Liu, Y. The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles. Qeios 2025. DOI: 10.32388/QD8GGF.

(31) Liu, Y. Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent: An Academic System Under Strain. 2025. https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/why-low-quality-articles-are-so-prevalent (accessed.

(32) Liu, Y. The Reluctance to Criticize the Errors of the Majority: Authority, Conformity, and Academic Silence in Scholarly Discourse. preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.2515.

(33) Liu, Y. The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science, . 2025. http://ai.vixra.org/abs/2509.0016 (accessed.

(34) Liu, Y. The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing. 2025. https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-quality-control (accessed.

(35) Liu, Y. The Academic Publishing Mythology: When Quality Control Becomes Quality Obstruction. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5478626.