Physics Discussion Thread

[A_Gupta]

US Constitution:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Of course, the Qatari jet was accepted without Consent of the Congress. But then Trump is not holding an Office of Trust

But back to the topic - I don't think India needs a new aristocracy - even if it is an aristocracy of high achievement. A high achiever can be an OCI or become an Indian citizen. No special dual citizenship rights are proper or necessary.

[bala]

^^ the Qatari jet was NOT accepted by DJT personally, it was sent to DoD and they took the Jet on behalf of the US. This not subject to the Constitution clause. Such FUD is created by the Dumbocrats who create needless crisis.

[Amber G.]

Friendly Request:

Let’s PLEASE keep this thread focused on the core issue!

Some of the comments about Trump, Democrats('Dumbocrats really ??? ) , Qatari jets, or voting rights debates unrelated to this case are taking the discussion FAR off-topic.

If you'd like to debate those subjects, kindly take them to another thread. Let's avoid trolling or derailing a thoughtful conversation. Thanks!

[Amber G.]

Just to clarify a few points:

- The issue raised in the article isn’t about creating an “aristocracy” but about the rigidity of rules—Geim himself said he would've declined the knighthood if he'd known. It’s not about entitlement, but how systems sometimes punish people unnecessarily, even when they’ve brought honor to a country.

- The comparison here is less about privilege and more about how nations treat their most distinguished citizens—like how Pakistan stripped Nobel laureate Abdus Salam of recognition and citizenship. It's a cautionary tale.

- And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.

---
In short: Earlier, India’s attitude to those who “left” was often tinged with skepticism. Today, the government sees them as ambassadors of India’s talent and soft power. The contrast is striking—especially when compared to the past, or to countries like the Netherlands or Pakistan that have penalized scientists like Geim or Salam.

[A_Gupta]

Friendly Request:

Let’s PLEASE keep this thread focused on the core issue!

Friendly Request:

Maybe you will explain on a suitable thread why the dual citizenship issue, which you brought up, has anything to do with physics. Or even your post just above.

Delete them, and I will delete mine.

[Vayutuvan]

I think there is skepticism of Indian establishment that they are anti-intellectual. It is not the case now and never was irrespective of who was in power. We can go back even to the beginning of our civilization. Scientists were always given respect and remuneration. None of them were persecuted as far as I know.

These fears of "stripping citizenship" (maybe some are afraid that their OCIs would get cancelled) are highly misplaced.

Equating what Dutch had done to their citizens or (of all the countries what Pakistan had done to their citizens) with India or the US (here I am reading between the lines and connecting the poster @Amber G.'s complaint about his friend who never took US citizenship) is beyond the pale.

And oh, definitely totally OT in this thread.

My last on this.

[vera_k]

Stripping citizenship like what the USA did to Bobby Fischer seems a peculiar Western/Pakistani concept.

Is there a similar case out of India?

Think here that not taking US citizenship is the right move if one is fearful of being stripped of citizenship for breaking whatever law has been dreamed up.

[A_Gupta]

And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.

Does 1968/69 count as "recent years"?

Har Gobind Khorana, 1968 Nobel Laureate: "Although he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, Khorana was born in India and received his early education there. India has recognized his achievements with awards such as the Padma Vibhushan, the country's second-highest civilian award, given in 1969. He was also elected a foreign member of the Indian Academy of Sciences."

=====
Regarding physics, this thread and in general, I will say this once (OT) and then fall silent.

1. Science, like physics or chemistry, is about what is. It informs on how to achieve something, and it informs on what is possible to achieve.

2. Science doesn't provide special insight into what should be - in particular, whether a country should have aristocratic titles, whether a country should allow its citizens to accept aristocratic titles, whether a country should reinstate citizenship of a person who renounced citizenship and so on.

3. There can be many legitimate opinions of what should be. If the science on a topic is sufficiently mature, there is usually only one legitimate opinion about what is. (The frontiers of science are where there are still legitimate divergent opinions.)

3. Separation of duties - organizations and governments often do not let one person play two roles where the roles may have conflicting interests. Sometimes it is a safety feature. Scientists really need to think about separation of duties in (a) the role of scientist, trying to figure out what is and (b) the role of activist or policy maker, trying to advocate for what should be.

4. Scientists need to respect separation of duties:

The public distrust of science is in part because scientists increasingly play both roles. The public has suspicions that activism/policy is distorting the science. The scientist really has to be devoted to one role or the other. Either they are devoted to science and pronounce on what is, what can be, and how to; but keep silent on what should be. Or else, they become activists and don't claim any special status in the debate by virtue of having been a scientist.

5. One time appeal:

I suspect you are not going to agree with me on the above. My friendly request is to then separate your "what is" posts from "what should be" posts, or else we will not be able to remain on topic.

Over and out on this topic.

[Vayutuvan]

...
Good post. I want to highlight the following point though.

3. Separation of duties - organizations and governments often do not let one person play two roles where the roles may have conflicting interests. Sometimes it is a safety feature. Scientists really need to think about separation of duties in (a) the role of scientist, trying to figure out what is and (b) the role of activist or policy maker, trying to advocate for what should be.
...

Currently there is quite a bit of push in scientific circles, especially at the topmost levels, for scientists to become activists and influence policy makers. There are even calls for scientists to become politicians.

If you look at any large institution that does science, the top people have to be politically savvy and be able to get consensus on the direction a particular area of science should take. Only mathematics is, to a large extent, shielded from such pressures. But not statistics, especially applied statistics.

For most good researchers, upward mobility is only through administration.

Very very recently I had drinks with my PhD batchmate who has taken up Chair of the top five CS departments in the country. I said I am very proud of her as she was my batchmate. Her response was that she really did not want to be the chair but that was the deal. She will have to become the chair or no position. Lot of researchers do not want to take on the administrative and committee work as it distracts from their research. But then universities want leaders. They are willing to cannibalize researchers so that they can get funding which is dwindling even in CS now that it is quite nature.

[Amber G.]

And as for India, a lot has changed in recent years. Earlier, those who took foreign citizenship were seen with suspicion. But now, people like Field Medalist Manjul Bhargava are welcomed, honored, and invited back to contribute. That shift in mindset is something to build on—not dismiss.

Does 1968/69 count as "recent years"?

Har Gobind Khorana, 1968 Nobel Laureate: "Although he became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, Khorana was born in India and received his early education there. India has recognized his achievements with awards such as the Padma Vibhushan, the country's second-highest civilian award, given in 1969. He was also elected a foreign member of the Indian Academy of Sciences."

==
<snip>

Hi A_Guptaji,

Welcome back — it’s been nearly a decade since your last post in physics dhaga, I think? Good to see you return. A quick heads-up that in the meantime, this physics thread (which I’ve been contributing to for over 900 posts now) has had its ups and downs. There have been times it veered off into some trolling territory — like when I posted about LIGO about the time you were commenting here more regularly- — and many of the "usual suspects" resorted to personal jabs. Ironically, several of the scientists they mocked later went on to win Nobel Prizes and global recognition. (Thread required a MAJOR cleanup with unbelievable nonsense - I have chosen to ignore those kind of obvious trolling)

That said, I absolutely agree that Har Gobind Khorana is a standout — and in some ways, an exception to the broader trend. He did receive the Padma Vibhushan in 1969, not long after his Nobel win. But I’d gently note: he’s more the exception than the norm.

There’s a long list of brilliant Indian-origin scientists who either became foreign citizens or worked abroad, and whose contributions were not sufficiently acknowledged or celebrated in India until more recently. And yes, I’ve tried to document DOZENS of such cases over the years and even posted long posts about them in BRF ( I advise you and others seriously interested to see them).

Some, like Narinder Singh Kapany — the "father of fiber optics" — (I Mentioned him at least 10 times in physics dhaga in details and celebrated when he got padm-vibhushan) received major Indian awards like the Padma Vibhushan only posthumously, after people like me and others lobbied hard. He is not alone others like E.C.G. Sudarshan or Mehta (of the Mehta–Dyson ensembles) often remained under the radar in India, despite major international impact. (As I said, there are DOZENS such scientists I have mentioned in physics dhaga -- many of these I personally lobbied to powers to be)

To illustrate the broader shift in attitude in recent years — particularly under the Modi govt’s outreach to the scientific diaspora — here are a few relevant examples (From physics only cases I know very well - randomly):

1. Ashoke Sen (String Theorist, India-based)
Chose to stay in India and was recognized relatively early (Infosys Prize, Fundamental Physics Prize).
Interesting contrast to others who moved abroad and weren’t celebrated until recently.

2. Atish Dabholkar (Theoretical physicist, ICTP Director)
A US citizen, now more actively engaged with Indian science policy and outreach.
Was once barely visible in Indian institutional discourse; now he's part of high-level collaborations with Indian institutes.

3. Subir Sachdev (Harvard, condensed matter physics)
World-renowned for AdS/CFT in strongly correlated systems.
Barely mentioned in Indian science media until the last 10 years.
Now regularly invited to conferences in India, and featured in lectures and outreach.

4. Shivaji Sondhi (Princeton, condensed matter theorist)
Again, someone who used to fly under the radar in Indian circles.
Now engaged with Indian institutions, giving talks and advising on science education and policy.

5. Rajesh Gopakumar (ex-Harvard, returned to India)
Earlier, returning scientists faced ambivalence or bureaucratic hurdles.
Now, he leads ICTS-TIFR — a shining example of “brain gain” backed by new initiatives.

6. Sandip Trivedi (String theorist, Director of TIFR)
US-trained and now among the most influential theoretical physicists in India.
Awarded Padma Shri in 2015 — during Modi’s tenure — signaling broader national acknowledgment.

So yes, things have changed. Earlier, there was often suspicion or indifference toward Indian-origin scientists who had "gone abroad" or taken foreign citizenship. That mindset is slowly giving way to one of engagement, respect, and collaboration — something I hope continues and deepens.

Warm regards,
Amber G.

___
Most of the people in India (and not too many even in BRF) know/knew about Manjul Bhargava or Akshay Venkatesh (Only too field medalists from India (Indian-decent) till Modi honored them)..
--
nJust a few Changes under Modi Govt & Broader Trends:

GIAN (Global Initiative of Academic Networks): Brought foreign-based Indian-origin scientists to teach in Indian institutions.

VAJRA Scheme: Invites NRIs/PIOs for research in India with government support.

Yuva Vigyani Programmes: Encourage visits and mentoring by diaspora scientists.

High-level diaspora honors: More Padma awards now go to overseas Indians in science.