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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS