Three misstatements
We very much appreciated you publishing an article about our research (“New iron-based superconductor found,” Sept. 13, page 4). The article is quite well written in general. However, some corrections are needed in order to avoid confusion.
First, the statement “Currently, the iron-based compound — dubbed ‘PbO type structure alpha-FeSe’ — can reach superconductive status at a temperature of 30 Kelvin” is not accurate. The FeSe superconductor has a transition temperature of 8K, and under pressure can reach 27K. Thus, it is important to stress that the higher transition temperature to the superconducting state can be achieved only under high pressure.
Second, the statement “Superconductivity is a physical phenomenon in which certain materials, when cooled to very low temperatures such as zero Kelvin” could be misleading. Up to now, it has been very difficult to cool things to exactly zero Kelvin. The lowest attainable temperatures with liquid cryogenic methods are typically in the range of tens of milliKelvin, which is still somewhat larger than zero. Also, as seen with high-tc and iron superconductors, we observe transitions around 8K to 93K, which are larger than zero Kelvin.
Finally, the statement “Meanwhile, a long-existing hypothesis about superconductors is that only substances that are anti-ferromagnetic in nature can be transformed into superconductors” is misphrased and somewhat incorrect. The hypothesis is that magnetism does not lead to superconductivity. Antiferromagnetism is in fact a form of magnetism that denotes how interacting spins align in an anti-parallel position. The high-tc superconductors are normally antiferromagnetic materials that become superconducting below their transition temperature. But the antiferromagnetism is not necessarily directly responsible for the superconductivity.
Saying that only antiferromagnetic materials can become superconducting is a gross misstatement.
MAW-KUEN WU
Director
Institute of Physics
Academia Sinica
Taipei
Importance or impotence?
Taiwanese sometimes have difficulty pronouncing the English words “importance” and “impotence.” The words might sound similar, but it seems that some can’t even tell them apart by their meanings.
Minister of Transportation and Communications Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) does not feel like saying sorry to the nation after “only” four bridges collapsed when Typhoon Sinlaku pelted Taiwan. The destruction does not seem to bother the minister: His important position has more important tasks than facing the families of victims and taking responsibility.
Casualties and damage brought by the typhoon are increasing, the stock market is tumbling, tainted Chinese products are entering the market and the sovereignty of the country is being challenged.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) important post also involves dealing with other more important issues, whatever they are. His schedule is hectic and includes dining with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators.
What else must happen on this island that would prompt the leaders of this country to reflect on the style of their leadership and make them aware that a sense of “importance” can be destructive? “Importance” leads to a failure to perform — to impotence.
HANNA SHEN
Taipei
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS