Comment by radioactivist
3 days ago
The ideas that underpin their device have been around for some time and aren't called by that name in the literature -- it appears to be entirely a branding exercise. A clear signal to me they don't seriously think it is a good name is that don't use the name outside this article (it appears nowhere in their Nature paper or anywhere else for that matter).
So what is it called then
It's a topological superconductor.
But that's not a good branding name. Would you argue that a mini fridge should only be marketed as a miniature refrigerator? It's a mouthful. Why does the name that's used for branding need to show up in Nature?