Skip to main content

Suzie Sheehy - Five Way Interview

Dr Suzy Sheehy is a physicist, science communicator and academic who divides her time between research groups at the University of Oxford and University of Melbourne. She is currently focused on developing new particle accelerators for applications in medicine. The Matter of Everything is her first book.

Why physics?


For me, one of the reasons I love physics is because it allows us to go deep into awe-inspiring and almost philosophical aspects of nature, yet is also inherently practical. By understanding and doing research in physics we are always expanding the knowledge of our species, giving us new perspectives on our world and on our place in it. But I also think physics is amazing because this knowledge can be used to improve our lives in myriad ways, from electronics, to cultural heritage and of course in medicine.

Why this book?

If you’ve ever read about physics discoveries and wondered 'but how do we know that?' this book will finally help you understand. It tells the human stories and puts the reader in the shoes of experimental physicists as they go about their work of (not to be too grand about it) uncovering the nature of reality. It also takes the reader beyond this, zooming out to answer the 'so what?' questions as well, highlighting the ways we have used all this knowledge in surprisingly practical ways.

Why are theorists better known to the public than experimentalists?

I can see three main reasons for this. First up, many folks don’t realise there are different types of physicists at all and assume we are alike and perhaps a little like Einstein. Second, we are story-driven people and pop culture is all about narrative: yet it’s harder to build narratives around experimental scientists because there are more of them. Today experimentalists often work together in collaborations of hundreds or thousands where the lead person is elected as a spokesperson, and often shy away from highlighting individual characters. Finally, pragmatically, in my experience theorists tend to write (almost) all the books on physics because they aren’t constrained by the day to day demands of running a lab. They definitely have a more writing-friendly working style than the experimentalists.

What’s next?

In particle physics it feels like research is reaching a new era: compelling theories that go beyond the so-called ‘Standard Model’ don’t yet seem to be supported by the data from the Large Hadron Collider. They may get a (nice) surprise after collecting more data… or they may need to shift their thinking and take a more experiment-led approach, reappraising the ‘knowledge gaps’ with an open mind. In this realm, physicists will need to investigate further into things we have discovered but not fully understood, like Higgs bosons and neutrinos, but also try to do experiments to understand or find things like dark matter. Meanwhile, I remain hopeful that our theorist colleagues might come up with new – perhaps even revolutionary – ideas.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I’m mostly excited that my new lab – called the X-LAB for compact particle accelerators – is getting up and running as I write this (yes… I should be in the lab helping, but I’m here writing this… see what I mean about theorists vs experimentalists!?). I’m very much looking forward to the potential our new lab holds for research and innovation. Fairly early in my research career I took a step back from the fundamental physics, instead choosing to work on accelerator technologies and their societal applications – particularly their potential to revolutionise cancer treatment. It’s important work that merges my love of both the philosophical and practical nature of physics.

Image © Alice Black 2022


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Infinity Machine - Sebastian Mallaby ****

It's very quickly clear that Sebastian Mallaby is a huge Demis Hassabis fan - writing about the only child prodigy and teen genius ever who was also a nice, rounded personality. After a few chapters, though, things settle down (I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' description of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ) and we get a good, solid trip through the journey that gave us DeepMind, their AlphaGo and AlphaFold programs, the sudden explosion of competition on the AI front and thoughts on artificial general intelligence. Although Mallaby does occasionally still go into fan mode - reading this you would think that AlphaFold had successfully perfectly predicted the structure of every protein, where it is usually not sufficiently accurate for its results to have direct practical application - we get a real feel for the way this relatively unusual company was swiftly and successfully developed away from Silicon Valley. It's readable and gives an important understanding of...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...
Post a Comment
Read more