博文

被实验反复证明的东西一定是真理吗

已有 1475 次阅读 2024-10-13 08:07 |系统分类:科研笔记

1 实验不是科学，完全相反的理论都可以被实验证实

【新提醒】科学网—[打听，科技政策] 日本诺贝尔科学奖“井喷”暂停？ - 杨正瓴的博文 (sciencenet.cn)

“这个事例告诉大家，单次实验观察不一定能完全独立于理论去无偏地验证理论预言，仅凭一次和少数几次实验检验理论的正确性是不可靠的，只有多次重复实验才能逼近理论描述的“客观实在”。”

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=s8areCsbC9C-qok7lSNCRWdG-WzaGIe3bH2mjvHaxCQbsjU0jfxOkjtYl89XeputaxnYy7Rt-1fbcYCqOQ17vyfeMEkWvuvnIWt6OtUIXAxuplSwJo_N8jfGWwjuDwda_zwxX_De7oi9gWYNixbAEQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

实验观测一万遍，也是太阳围着地球转，

但是真理是：

地球围着太阳转。

如果被实验反复证明的就是真理，

那么

谎言重复一万遍就是真理。

单次实验观察不一定能完全独立于理论去无偏地验证理论预言，仅凭一次和少数几次实验检验理论的正确性是不可靠的，只有多次重复实验才能逼近理论描述的“客观实在”

错误的现行微波吸收理论在顶级期刊上有上万篇实验报告支持，但是这个理论错了。

仅仅有实验支持，无论实验的数目有多少，都是靠不住的。

关键是有没有严格的逻辑，不同角度的考量，超时代的思维，

而不是瞎猫碰到死耗子式的做实验，无脑地写实验报告。

2 现代主流科学家认为：被实验反复验证的东西是不允许质疑的

“This paper attempts to build a discrete theory which unifies quantum electrodynam-

ics (QED) and classical general relativity (GR). The author eschews the normal

strategy of looking for a mathematical formalism which reduces to those theories in

appropriate limits or regimes, pointing out -- correctly as far as it goes -- that all that

is scientifically required is for the empirical predictions of those theories to be reproduced.

However, ... the current paper does not even begin to carry out this task,

and indeed it explicitly eschews it ... However, if one proposes a replacement for a

very well confirmed physical theory, it is obligatory to prove its consistency with

the experimental data. Since that is not done, the paper is not publishable." (emphasis original)

-- anonymous referee of a journal soliciting for papers on unification,

dismissing the submission because consistency with every experiment ever done in

the realm of gravitation and electromagnetism is not proven

-----

为了拒绝颠覆性创新，这种评审意见很常见。

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

Reviewer 2:

the manuscript is too simplistic to support the conclusions. For its current state, it is not recommended for publication in Next Research.

1. In the introduction, the authors cite literature 55-62 to validate the idea of "replacing impedance matching theory with wave dynamics". The dates cited in the references cover 2012, 2018, 2023, and 2024, and it is not clear whether these are the only articles included or whether there are others not listed. To verify the validity of the theory, the majority of the published relevant literature should be covered and not just rely on the few articles listed as evidence. Moreover, it is unclear whether there are other theories that are equally consistent with the Law. The authors should indicate the inapplicability of other relevant theories, not just state that the theory is correct.

根本没有通读读稿件的评语

2. Generally, the universality of a theory must be verified through a large amount of experimental data. However, this article did not fully utilize experimental data for analysis to draw conclusions, which lacks persuasiveness, and its argument is only based on data in the literature that is unfavorable for impedance matching.

3. Throughout the manuscript, the authors emphasize that microwave absorption decreases with increasing film thickness, based on existing research. It is not convincing to use it to prove the universality of wave dynamics.

4. When explaining equations (26) and (27), the authors believe that the impedance matching theory is difficult to verify, while wave dynamics theory can be verified. However, in most cases, there are errors in the experimental and testing process, which may lead to deviations between the experimental results and theoretical calculations. Therefore, this discrepancy obviously cannot be taken as strong evidence for the authors' viewpoint.

完全错误的评语

------

写过一些评述微波吸收错误文章的稿子，基本都被期刊拒绝发表

The two special cases discussed in this paper can not be used as a strong argument to support the author's query, so a more detailed proof process is needed to determine the applicability of the model in other cases. Thank the author for his contribution to the theoretical application of quarter wavelength theory. However, because the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this review still need to be further discussed, there is still a certain distance from publication. So, I do not recommend it to be accepted for publication.

-----

同样的道理审稿人的数量不能充分说明期刊同行评审的结果是正确的

同意颠覆现行理论的稿件发表，就是编辑和审稿人都勇敢地承担了巨大风险、和责任，表明了他们的胆识、他们承担了巨大的压力

Reviewer #2:

Quarter-wavelength model is the experimental result and of course right. The inappropriate issue is the wavelength formula inside material rather than Quarter-wavelength model. 4. The authors declare that the impedance matching in the interface cannot be achieved by adjusting Zin. This sentence is not right. The impedance matching reveals the zero reflection on the interface between material layer and air. Zin is a parameter of absorber device include the material properties, material thickness and the backed metal. Impedance matching in the interface can be surely achieved by adjusting Zin. 5. "using s11 and s21 to obtain permittivity and permeability and using s11 and s21 to characterize material are not the same." The permittivity and permeability is obtained by using S11, S21, and thickness of material. If material thickness is known, we can use S11 and S21 to characterize material. If thickness is unknown, permittivity and permeability cannot be obtained by S11 and S21.

Reviewer #3: The authors present their viewpoint against the current theories of reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model in this letter. I appreciate their spirit of exploration and thought of criticalness. For prudential reasons, I am afraid that the letter cannot be accepted before more convincing evidences being added. I have several comments as follows:

1. I agree that the reflection loss is a property of coatings or films, which I think it is wide accepted in the field of microwave absorption. In ref.[5], they point out that the RL concerns with the coating thickness and frequency, and the RL of coating can be optimized by adjusting d value. I do not think the ref.[5] use RL to characterize the intrinsic quality of a pure materials. （审稿人在睁眼说瞎话） 2. Regarding to the imaginary permeability, there are many publications discussing the reason and mechanism of the negative imaginary permeability, but no unified conclusion is widely agreed. The authors' opinion of 'the magnetic loss is determined by the absolute value of mr"' may make sense, but I found that the references to support this opinion are written by the authors themselves. For prudential reasons, I think it is not convincing enough to refute ref.[5]. Then for the quarter-wavelength model, the authors also refer themselves' papers to support their view. I think more references are needed such as monographs to support their opinions if they want to change the widely accepted method in a field. 审稿人提供的拒稿理由充分吗？

Reviewer #8: The criticisms included in the manuscript, such as reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model, but I think in this feild, we use different method to evaluate its microwave absorbing properties. I think the Reflection loss could also be used to characterize material and film. there are some grammar mistakes in the manuscript. 审稿人用错误的观点拒稿正确的观点。

Reviewer #10: Recommendation: Reject Comments: This Letter tries to point out the so-called theoretical problem in a recent paper as well as the whole microwave absorption realm. However, it severely misunderstands the characterization and the related theory in these works and misjudges the results. It should not be published.

Detailed comments include the follows: (1) In the adduced papers, the electromagnetic parameters are measured from the absorbent/paraffin rather than the pure absorbent. The calculated reflection loss definitely represents the performance of the film made of the prepared absorbent and polymer matrix. In this letter, the authors misunderstand these works and believe that the reflection loss is the performance of the pure absorbent, which is a false conclusion. 文章所关心的结论于吸收剂是否与高分子基质混合无关。

(2) The impedance matching theory tries to find the relationship between the intrinsic electromagnetic properties of composite film and its microwave absorption property. It can widely guide the synthesis of nano/microsized absorbents in the material realm. In the letter, the authors judge the impedance matching and the reflection loss, from the point of engineering science, by the maximum amplitude of voltage at the surface/interface. These two theories have their own character and applying scope, which can not be used to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the published papers.

该评论说明审稿人对膜、界面、和材料的概念混乱。 Overall, the scientific debate and doubt are welcome since they can somehow promote the progress in all the research realms. （那么为什么不让争论？）However, we wish the debate and doubt are made after carefully reading, thinking, and understanding（审稿人并没有给出该评语的支持证据）. Besides, some scientific results maybe demonstrated to tbe wrong in the future, even though they are right at present due to the limitation of current theories. These mistakes should be allowed. Without them, the truth will never be found. 审稿人的逻辑：

========================

对于颠覆性创新，一篇文章提出的证据的数量，不可能与传统理论获得的实验支持的数量匹敌。

但是你不能以此为理由拒稿，

你需要允许反对观点的证据逐渐累积。

3 有无数次实验验证就是充分论证吗？仅仅一篇颠覆性创新的论证可不可以是充分的

什么是充分的论证？

无数次的实验验证就是充分的吗？

充不充分要看逻辑，

而不是实验验证的次数。

如果实验验证的次数决定是否充分，

那么现行错误理论永远不能被推翻，科学永远不得进步。

4 是主流科学家把实验当成科学研究，使得用学术不端获利变得容易

有理论实力的科学家蔑视造假。没有理论功底才有造假的需求：

Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar spacing in crystals with reference to recent publications. SN Applied Sciences 2020 , 2(4) : 755.

“Lacking interest in fundamental theory can lead to problems in academic honesty and mistakes in publications, originating from the fact that researchers are, perhaps necessarily, too eager for the next publication.”

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/28/weekend-reads-why-coronavirus-papers-need-a-warning-label-scientists-correct-the-record/

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1453047.html

Did Eliezer Masliah Cheat?

相当多的学术权威不是因为学术而权威，他们靠造假发表垃圾文章污染学术而成为学术权威

如果科学家们明白：科学就是理论，科学不是进实验室做实验、写实验报告，

学术造假的智力成本会增加很多。

学术不端会减少很多，

靠造假起家的学术权威的数量会减少很多。

相当多的学术权威不是因为学术而权威，他们靠造假发表垃圾文章污染学术而成为学术权威

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

如果没有动力，你很难坐下来推导公式做理论研究

搞学术厉害的群体中会有更多精致利己者吗？