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

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more