Talk:Daulat Singh Kothari

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Daulat Singh Kothari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6U68ulwpb?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmha.nic.in%2Fsites%2Fupload_files%2Fmha%2Ffiles%2FLST-PDAWD-2013.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LST-PDAWD-2013.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707073335/http://auaa.in/?page_id=31 to http://auaa.in/?page_id=31
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.auaa.in/proudpast.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://auaa.in/?page_id=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of Kothari's activities in the 30s
DOIs that show kothari's institution was Allahabad/Delhi as early as 1928, 1929/1930, 1933, 1935, 1937

and his memoirs stating he was a student of Saha:

what we also know is he was never officially affiliated with the university of cambridge.

in 1931 we have a few publications where he uses "Belvoir Road, Cambridge" as his affiliation  and another that simply states cambridge, but it is highly unlikely to be the university, given the previous affiliation

two others in 1932 were communicated by professor ralph fowler communicated his work (1932), but it is without any institution and milne.

i find this to be quite poignant when looking at the paper communicated by fowler, where even taylor & francis' system states his affiliation as " Cambridge ; Physics Department, University of Delhi" because it's so incredibly inconsistent with his body of work, which was produced in asia, save these four publications (apparently).

these four papers are as-close as kothari gets to being affiliated with the UNIVERSITY of cambridge, but all of them state cambridge, implying belvoir road.

and as we are aware from the first set of citations, kothari is back in delhi by 1933 without a PhD.

the most troubling thing is the 1938 outlier publication where kothari communicates the work himself, as D.S. Kothari, PhD (Cambridge), given that we know he was publishing in asia at that time (see ).

from all of the evidence, it seems kothari was only at cambridge for a maximum of two years and, even with that, was never officially affiliated with the university at that time.

anyways, this is as-ironclad as it gets.

sorry again but i wanted to make sure my case was tight. it is.


 * The simplest explanation is that these works were completed while Kothari was in India as an MS student and the review process for Nature, notoriously long, took some time before publication.


 * In any case the Cambridge University library catalogue lists Kothari's PhD as 1933. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * no, this is not the simplest explanation because as i've shown above, there are many years he is publishing in asia. the only evidence he was ever at cambridge was in 1931 and 1932. that's it. and then he appears in 1938 with the PhD suffix using Cambridge without any college or laboratory (see sir J.J's publication in phil mag )
 * there is no way to explain an entire decade of activity at one institution, with four at another that are missing any college/laboratory, through "notorious" publication delays in Nature. actually, back then things were much quicker.
 * what makes your explanation fall short is that he represented cambridge (without a lab/college) in 1931/1932. then he's back representing Delhi in 1933. are you trying to tell me that in 1933 the work he had from before cambridge is now being published again? it doesn't work. the more likely explanation is, evidenced by works communicated by Milne and Fowler, he did have some affiliation but not nearly enough to justify the claim of supervision by Da Baron.

in fact, Da Baron never communicates ANYTHING for Kothari. there's simply nothing here. it's too inconsistent and the onus is on you to produce the digitised thesis that shows he was supervised by rutherford.