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 AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more