[sillysaurusx]

I’m not so sure. The same argument would apply to theoretical physics in 1960. Circa 2023, there are remarkably few shallow parts of physics.

Math as a whole may last longer, but this list reminds us how far we’ve come in a mere few millennia: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/SaI50Q1d/166786520...

On the timescale of civilization, it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field.

We’re fortunate to have been born so early, relatively speaking.

[nyokodo]

> it seems less and less likely that lone mathematicians can revolutionize the field.

Which inspires the question: how much can cutting edge math be parallelized?

[squokko]

But you can manufacture new areas of mathematics. For example, Conway's Game of Life, and then prove theorems on it.

[mlyle]

Physics is limited by having to represent phenomena in our physical world simply.

Mathematics is not just a small integer multiple larger than this.

[joe_the_user]

This is almost correct.

It's not that math is vastly larger (or more sophisticated) as a field. Both fields are infinitely large in many senses. Rather, the number of respectable starting points where you can do interesting things is much larger, orders larger in math.

[romwell]

There are plenty of unexplored things in physics too; the key word is "respectable".

Looking from the outside, physics suffers a lot from fashion/hot trend tendencies, where you need to be doing the "hot" thing to make the jumps necessary to the coveted Tenure Track — and otherwise, you get kicked out.