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 Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more