C/O Paramita Bhattacharyya
The Silhouette: Please introduce yourself.
Paramita Bhattacharyya: My name is Paramita Bhattacharyya. I am currently doing my PhD in the department of engineering physics, where my specialization is in photovoltaics. I also did my master's here in the same department, so I have been with McMaster [University] for around three years now. I'm an international student, so I did my undergrad studies back in India.
What inspired you to pursue a PhD?
When I was doing my undergrad, it was by chance, or by luck that I got to know about an alumnus of my department who was working with photovoltaics. My dad is in a non-renewable energy sector, so he's associated with oil and . . . when I was growing up, I was always surrounded by concepts of renewables and non-renewables. When I got the chance in my undergrad to work on photovoltaics a little bit, I took that opportunity and I was fascinated by the research that I did. I came to McMaster for my masters because I wanted to specifically work on photovoltaics and I wanted to work with my supervisor [Rafael] Kleiman. Later, I loved my research so much that I was like, "No, I really want to do a PhD because I want to join the industry as a research scientist."
Could you elaborate on your research?
We are integrating solar cells [onto] the body of an electric car. Basically, we are not putting on panels, but we are making the body with steel and a [copper indium gallium selenide solar cell]. Particularly, my focus is that all the solar cells look pretty dull, like a blue or black colour. A market survey was done and it was found that no one really likes to have those dull coloured cars, and people definitely don't like to have a car which looks exactly the same as their neighbour’s. So, my research comes into the picture, because I am trying to make these dull, boring cells colourful by working with optical filters . . . I want to have solar cells that look colourful; that's the first part. The second is, we want to properly integrate those solar cells with the body of the car. Then we would love to see how much energy we are getting in different provinces in Canada and the States. We have to do a detailed study about how much energy the cells will be supporting for the battery and a lot of stuff. This is very new research, so it's in the very early stages. There are lots and lots of things to do, but we are keeping our goals pretty short right now, pretty small. Let's first know how to walk before we run.
Do you have a general idea of when we might be able to start seeing solar panel integrated cars?
I won't say many decades in the future, because the company called General Motors is working with us so it's already an industry collaboration. I expect to see the first prototype in four years. That means we will be able to make at least one car like that. After that, it takes a lot of time to scale down the existing manufacturing process that they already have right now and to integrate the new things that we will be recommending. So maybe in 10 to 15 years, we will be able to see those cars on the road, but again, I'm being extremely optimistic.
What has been your favourite part of your research?
Just the thrill of not knowing what I'm doing every day. It's very frustrating but it's very exciting. I love this adrenaline rush. I don't know whether what I am planning will actually work or not, so it can happen that three years down the line, whatever I was thinking is not working at all. There is always that risk. But, if we succeed, then we will also get the fun of doing something that no one has done before. It's that adrenaline rush, that uncertainty of life, because you just don't know what's going to happen. You are just trying to find something that you just don't know how it should look like, or what it is going to be — you're just trying to find something new.
Have you learned any personal lessons as a result of your research?
Yes, a lot. I have learned how to be more patient. I have learned how to not lose hope when things go bad because it's going to go bad all the time. Because the day you get your answer is the last day of your research. So, before that, every day may be a disappointment because you just don't know what's happening.
Do you have any other comments?
I would just tell people to be hopeful in this time. We are coming back, we will come back. So just keep working. Keep going. If you feel like you really don't know what you're doing in life, that's completely okay. The sun always rises after the darkest part of the night. It really doesn't matter what you do, you could do research, you join the industry, or you do something amazingly creative. Just do what you feel like doing, otherwise, you might be exhausted pretty easily so just do what you want to do.
By Sabrina Macklai
On Oct 2. 2018, Donna Strickland became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in physics in 55 years. Strickland graduated McMaster University in 1981 with a degree in engineering physics and has since been responsible for greatly advancing the field of laser physics while at the University of Waterloo.
She won the prize for introducing the technique of chirped pulse amplification, which has broad-spectrum applications in laser microsurgery and micromachinery. Prior to Strickland, Maria Goeppert-Mayer received the prize in 1963 for generating evidence in support of the nuclear shell model – which today is still the most widely used and accepted theoretical model of the atomic nucleus. The only other woman to ever win the Nobel Prize in physics is Marie Curie in 1903, for the discovery of radioactivity.
While surely women have come a long way since 1903, the fact remains that women in academia, especially in the male-dominated field of physics, are at a serious disadvantage. Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded 112 times to over 200 individual recipients. The fact that only three women have won this prize out of the 200 recipients is alarming.
Gender bias in science is not a new concept. Goeppert-Mayer spent most of her career largely unpaid, despite holding the title of a Nobel Prize laureate. According to the American Institute of Physics, while women earn around 20 per cent of all bachelor degrees in physics, women earn less than 10 per cent of doctorates in physics. Among physics faculty members, women are only represented by 15 per cent.
There are many reasons for the lack of women that have little to do with a lack of interest. Navigating academia is difficult. There is a large disparity between the number of doctoral graduates who aspire to become professors versus the number of available positions. The likelihood of becoming a professor varies depending on the field of study, but in general, less than 10 per cent of all doctoral graduates actually continue in academia. And of those few who remain, the chance of obtaining a tenure-track position is even slimmer.
Women who dare to enter academia often face discrimination in addition to the above limitations. They may hold their doctorate degree and contribute greatly to their field, but still be overlooked for tenure and other ways to advance their careers in comparison to their male counterparts. While this is true of almost all academic fields, women in physics seem to be at an even greater disadvantage. In comparison to other physical sciences like chemistry, which have near-equal representation of men and women at the undergraduate level, there is something about physics that leads it to having one of the worst gender gaps.
The lack of women in physics is only one problem. It’s no secret that being male and being white is characteristic of physics majors. Being a person of colour, particularly being Black, adds a whole new layer of systematic barriers against success in the field.
There is growth, however small. The American Institute of Physics reports that in the United States between 2003 and 2013, the number of bachelor degrees in physics earned by Black, Indigenous and Hispanic women increased by 40 per cent. This number is significantly lower than the 59 per cent total increase in bachelor degrees in physics. It is also much lower than the 65 per cent increase in total number of bachelor degrees achieved by Black, Indigenous and Hispanic women. For whatever reason, women and minorities continue to be underrepresented in physics.
How do we move forward from here? I don’t know. What I do know is that the issue of diversity in physics is a problem of the system and thus requires those with the power to change the system to act accordingly. Create support networks for minorities in physics. Acknowledge harmful departmental climates. Have selection committees that are truly representative of the population. Consciously work towards to creating equal employment and advancement opportunities.
Women and minorities have so much to contribute to their fields, including physics. Their advancements could very well lead to novel solutions for problems that seemed out of reach. By not addressing the systematic barriers against these groups, we all sit at a disadvantage.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Researchers looking for an alternative planet for habitation are limiting their options, as a study lead by McMaster’s René Heller suggests.
Heller’s paper says that scientists who only search for Earth-like planets may be missing out on finding habitable planets that are not like Earth.
Heller is a member of the university’s Department of Physics and Astronomy and the lead author of a thought-provoking paper recently published in Astrobiology titled ‘Superhabitable Worlds’.
A seed germinated in Heller’s mind while perusing the livechat that accompanied a stream of an AbGradCon talk in 2012. It was during the chat that he noticed John Armstrong of Utah’s Weber State University asking if anyone thought that certain circumstances could make an Earth-like planet even more habitable than Earth itself.
“I thought about it for weeks and it somehow turned into a paper. I later invited John Armstrong, who asked the question, to join as co-author,” Heller recounted from his office in the Arthur Bourns Building.
The resulting work refutes Peter Ward’s and Donald Brownlee’s Rare Earth hypothesis, which argues that an Earth-like planet is necessary for extra-terrestrial life to subsist and that these planets may not exist.
Heller said he and his co-author were motivated by the lack of scholarship sharing their view that Earth is probably not the most likely place in the universe to be inhabited.
“All I found was literature proposing that there could be other forms of life.”
To address this oversight, the two academics explored the idea that Earth may only be barely habitable compared to other planets since it exists at “the very inner edge of the solar habitable zone,” and is consequently “literally marginally habitable because it just scrapes the edge of the solar habitable zone,” Heller added with a laugh.
To highlight the difference, Heller says they came up with a set of bodily characteristics that prospective superhabitable planets might possess.
The list is extensive, but some of the characteristics include: total surface area, plate tectonics, magnetic shielding, surface temperature, biological diversification and age.
“The most important aspect to consider is that these superhabitable planets will be terrestrial, meaning earth-like in composition, but slightly more massive than Earth, maybe two to three times the mass of the Earth.”
Despite the fact that a search for such planets is currently limited by technology, the paper already pinpoints a place to start once the means are available.
According to the report, a star named Alpha Centauri B is a member of the nearest stellar system to the Sun and is purported to host an Earth-mass planet, which is so close the star that it is rendered inhabitable.
“This star is interesting because it is slightly older than the Sun, which is a pro because its planets may have been inhabited earlier than Earth has…I think it will take maybe a decade or before these two to three Earth-mass planets, if they existed, could be discovered in the stellar habitable zone.”
NASA’s introduction of the James Webb telescope in 2018 could be helpful in characterizing of the planets if they cross the stellar disc once per orbit as it could detect the chemical imprints in the atmospheres of those worlds, Heller noted.
The open-minded hypothesis has gained traction amongst his scientific peers, says Heller, with most being amenable to the idea.
When asked if a migration from Earth is in the cards should conditions further deteriorate, Heller said, “Nothing is impossible…it might be an option. Not today, not in a thousand years, but maybe in a million years.”
