Michael Biercuk works at the cutting edge of research but his other passion is a technology from the past.
Your surname is interesting; where are you from?
The surname is Polish but I’m a typical American mutt, half Jewish Turk and half Polish. I was born and brought up in New York. I moved to Australia in 2010 – very much the right move.
Why here?
Australia has for some time been a real leader in this new field of quantum science and technology. I had the opportunity to visit in 2005 while I was a PhD student. I made many contacts and learnt about the strength of that community here, so some years later when I was offered the chance to work here, I jumped on it.
You’re director of Sydney Uni’s Quantum Control Laboratory. What does that mean you do? We know what a writer or a plumber does …
“Plumber” actually comes closest. A plumber will have to do plumbing, order supplies, employ apprentices, build a business and manage paperwork. As an experimentalist my role is very similar. I run a research group, build technology – special plumbing to contain individual atoms – oversee how it gets used, hire students and staff, read and learn about new techniques. What we do relates to building new kinds of clocks and very much faster computers.
Clocks?
Nearly everything around us, throughout history, works because of the availability of very precise time-keeping instruments. You can tell how long a satellite signal takes to reach us only if you have an accurate clock. There’s a tremendous demand for ever more accuracy and stability, and the work the research community has done on trapping atoms to develop these clocks has translated to other things, for example computers that can solve problems no current computer would be capable of.
Your work is at the cutting edge yet you’re wearing a mechanical watch (Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra-Thin Moon-Phase) rather than a more accurate, connected watch. Why so?
It’s true, it’s not even as accurate as a quartz watch, but it’s not about the best clock. I can’t wear an atomic clock on my wrist – it’s half the size of a room. A mechanical timepiece is about artistry, they’re computers where the program is written in the shape of the metal.
You haven’t been tempted to try a smart watch?
If I want to know the accurate time my phone accomplishes that for me. Having such a device on my wrist – I’ve tried one – I find very distracting. I should also say I’m not an early adopter, which is maybe funny given I’m working at the leading edge of developing technology and building very new and exotic things. But at home I like to wait until things are sorted out. The modern consumer culture is to replace things as often as possible, upgrade every two years and, from the manufacturer’s perspective, release as soon as possible. IT companies have shown this doesn’t work very well – with a brand new computer you might have to download a hundred updates before it works. I like the idea that watches are more tried and tested before they’re released onto the market.
Do you have many watches?
I have several – “many” is an aspiration. My daily watch is a Rolex Milgauss, very robust. I tend to smash into things a lot and I work with big magnets. [The Milgauss has magnetic protection.] I have a Rolex Deep Sea, also extremely robustly engineered, with a more modern case. I have my eye on a Lange 1 with a white-gold case and black dial and I’m in love with an F.P. Journe Chronometre Optimum with the deadbeat seconds.
Those aren’t run-of-the-mill pieces. Is your appreciation of such fine objects an antidote to your work?
I tend to enjoy deep craftsmanship in pretty much any setting – building furniture, in mechanical systems, motor vehicle engines. I enjoy art. I collect certain artists, unfortunately they’ve become overexposed. I started collecting Shepard Fairey, the guy who did the Obama “Hope” posters, back in 1999/2000 when he was nobody. I’m also passionate about fitness and used to fight competitively. I also used to do jiu-jitsu, which I’ve given up because of my knees. I guess I obsess a little.
