According to this site, the top 10 most influential physicists today are:

https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today

Steven Weinberg (88): particle physics, gravitation and cosmology, Higgs Boson, unified theory.

Roger Penrose (90): general relativity, cosmology, philosophy, consciousness and quantum effects.

Lee Smolin (66): particle physics, cosmology, QM, theoretical biology, quantum gravity, anti-string theory.

Kip S. Thorne (81): relativistic astrophysics and gravitation physic, wormholes, LIGO project.

Leonard Susskind (81): QFT, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. One of the fathers of string theory.

David Gross (80): quantum chromodynamics, string theory.

Edward Witten (70): GR, supersymmetry.

Gerard't Hooft (75): black holes, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics.

Carlo Rovelli (65): quantum physics, loop quantum gravity theory.

Lisa Randall (59): particle physics, cosmology.

All of them are theoretical physicists, except two polymath.

7 out of 10 are more than 70 years old. The 3 that remain are close to
their 70s.

How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
before being 30 years old.

Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
and in this range of creativity vs. age?

I wonder.

Op 27-aug.-2021 om 07:50 schreef Richard Hertz:
> According to this site, the top 10 most influential physicists today are:
>
> https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today
>
> Steven Weinberg (88): particle physics, gravitation and cosmology, Higgs Boson, unified theory.
>
> Roger Penrose (90): general relativity, cosmology, philosophy, consciousness and quantum effects.
>
> Lee Smolin (66): particle physics, cosmology, QM, theoretical biology, quantum gravity, anti-string theory.
>
> Kip S. Thorne (81): relativistic astrophysics and gravitation physic, wormholes, LIGO project.
>
> Leonard Susskind (81): QFT, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. One of the fathers of string theory.
>
> David Gross (80): quantum chromodynamics, string theory.
>
> Edward Witten (70): GR, supersymmetry.
>
> Gerard't Hooft (75): black holes, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics.
>
> Carlo Rovelli (65): quantum physics, loop quantum gravity theory.
>
> Lisa Randall (59): particle physics, cosmology.
>
>
> All of them are theoretical physicists, except two polymath.
>
> 7 out of 10 are more than 70 years old. The 3 that remain are close to
> their 70s.
>
> How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
> of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
> before being 30 years old.

Perhaps "influential" means "having had great influence" on today's
views in the community.
Perhaps you should have read the entire article. It says:

| "Note: This isn’t simply a list of the most influential physicists
| alive today. Here we are focused on the number of citations and
| web presence of scholars in the last 10 years. There are other
| highly influential scholars who simply haven’t been cited and
| talked about as much in the last 10 years, whereas some new faces
| have been making a splash in the news, speaking events, and
| publishing, publishing, publishing. Our AI is time sensitive.
| To find some of the big names you might have expected to see
| here, we encourage you to use our dynamic ranking system and
| check influence over the past 20 and 50 years."

Dirk Vdm

>
> Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
> and in this range of creativity vs. age?
>
> I wonder.
>

On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 07:50:18 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> According to this site, the top 10 most influential physicists today are:
>
> https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today
>
> Steven Weinberg (88): particle physics, gravitation and cosmology, Higgs Boson, unified theory.
>
> Roger Penrose (90): general relativity, cosmology, philosophy, consciousness and quantum effects.
>
> Lee Smolin (66): particle physics, cosmology, QM, theoretical biology, quantum gravity, anti-string theory.
>
> Kip S. Thorne (81): relativistic astrophysics and gravitation physic, wormholes, LIGO project.
>
> Leonard Susskind (81): QFT, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. One of the fathers of string theory.
>
> David Gross (80): quantum chromodynamics, string theory.
>
> Edward Witten (70): GR, supersymmetry.
>
> Gerard't Hooft (75): black holes, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics.
>
> Carlo Rovelli (65): quantum physics, loop quantum gravity theory.
>
> Lisa Randall (59): particle physics, cosmology.
>
>
> All of them are theoretical physicists, except two polymath.
>
> 7 out of 10 are more than 70 years old. The 3 that remain are close to
> their 70s.
>
> How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
> of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
> before being 30 years old.
>
> Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
> and in this range of creativity vs. age?

Rather, it is the sign that physics esteems mostly demented,
mindless mumble nowadays.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to this site, the top 10 most influential physicists today are:
>
> https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today
>
> Steven Weinberg (88): particle physics, gravitation and cosmology, Higgs
> Boson, unified theory.
>
> Roger Penrose (90): general relativity, cosmology, philosophy,
> consciousness and quantum effects.
>
> Lee Smolin (66): particle physics, cosmology, QM, theoretical biology,
> quantum gravity, anti-string theory.
>
> Kip S. Thorne (81): relativistic astrophysics and gravitation physic,
> wormholes, LIGO project.
>
> Leonard Susskind (81): QFT, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum
> cosmology. One of the fathers of string theory.
>
> David Gross (80): quantum chromodynamics, string theory.
>
> Edward Witten (70): GR, supersymmetry.
>
> Gerard't Hooft (75): black holes, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics.
>
> Carlo Rovelli (65): quantum physics, loop quantum gravity theory.
>
> Lisa Randall (59): particle physics, cosmology.
>
>
> All of them are theoretical physicists, except two polymath.
>
> 7 out of 10 are more than 70 years old. The 3 that remain are close to
> their 70s.
>
> How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
> of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
> before being 30 years old.

That depends on how “influential” is being measured, doesn’t it? What does
it say they do for that?

Yes, there are of course many young physicists who are making strong
contributions to physics, which has little to do with influence as measured
in this article. Yes, it is also true that most of the physicists cited
above are no longer publishing seminal works, which again has nothing to do
with influence as measured in this article. And yes, it is true that this
list is composed entirely of theorists and includes no experimentalists,
which has everything to do with how influence is measured in this article.

Note, by the way, that at least a couple on this list are now dead. Their
very death contributes to their influence by the measures used in this
article. Isn’t that interesting?

>
> Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
> and in this range of creativity vs. age?
>
> I wonder.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 10:50:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> According to this site, the top 10 most influential physicists today are:
>
> https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today
>
> Steven Weinberg (88): particle physics, gravitation and cosmology, Higgs Boson, unified theory.
>
> Roger Penrose (90): general relativity, cosmology, philosophy, consciousness and quantum effects.
>
> Lee Smolin (66): particle physics, cosmology, QM, theoretical biology, quantum gravity, anti-string theory.
>
> Kip S. Thorne (81): relativistic astrophysics and gravitation physic, wormholes, LIGO project.
>
> Leonard Susskind (81): QFT, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. One of the fathers of string theory.
>
> David Gross (80): quantum chromodynamics, string theory.
>
> Edward Witten (70): GR, supersymmetry.
>
> Gerard't Hooft (75): black holes, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics.
>
> Carlo Rovelli (65): quantum physics, loop quantum gravity theory.
>
> Lisa Randall (59): particle physics, cosmology.
>
>
> All of them are theoretical physicists, except two polymath.
>
> 7 out of 10 are more than 70 years old. The 3 that remain are close to
> their 70s.
>
> How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
> of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
> before being 30 years old.
>
> Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
> and in this range of creativity vs. age?
>
> I wonder.

You are not in a position to create authority.
Nobody has to listen to you do they?
Kip Thorne took a correction over his BH
theory. BHs predict FTL math.
That is why they fail by Gamma math...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:30:28 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> You are not in a position to create authority.
> Nobody has to listen to you do they?
> Kip Thorne took a correction over his BH
> theory. BHs predict FTL math.
> That is why they fail by Gamma math...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't write the article, Mitchell.
Complain to the publisher that wrote the article, if you want.

About Academic­Influence.com
Who We Are, What We Do, and How We Do It

We are a team of academics and data scientists working to provide an objective, non-gameable influence-based
ranking for the people, schools, and disciplinary programs that make up higher education. To that end, we have
engineered an innovative and unbiased ranking technology that employs machine learning to measure the impact
of work produced by the world’s top academic influencers. Our InfluenceRanking™ engine brings to light the
achievements of top institutions and top academics across the world.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:30:28 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You are not in a position to create authority.
>> Nobody has to listen to you do they?
>> Kip Thorne took a correction over his BH
>> theory. BHs predict FTL math.
>> That is why they fail by Gamma math...
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> I didn't write the article, Mitchell.
> Complain to the publisher that wrote the article, if you want.
>
>
>
> About Academic­Influence.com
> Who We Are, What We Do, and How We Do It
>
> We are a team of academics and data scientists working to provide an
> objective, non-gameable influence-based
> ranking for the people, schools, and disciplinary programs that make up
> higher education. To that end, we have
> engineered an innovative and unbiased ranking technology that employs
> machine learning to measure the impact
> of work produced by the world’s top academic influencers. Our
> InfluenceRanking™ engine brings to light the
> achievements of top institutions and top academics across the world.
>
>
>

By the way, if you use this site and expand and ask for those exerting
influence between 2010 and 2020, you’ll find a fair number of
experimentalists in there, which weren’t in the list in the OP. People like
Riess, Schmidt, Perlmutter, Burrell, Barish, Chu, Lederman, Wilson, Verma,
etc.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:07:13 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> By the way, if you use this site and expand and ask for those exerting
> influence between 2010 and 2020, you’ll find a fair number of
> experimentalists in there, which weren’t in the list in the OP. People like
> Riess, Schmidt, Perlmutter, Burrell, Barish, Chu, Lederman, Wilson, Verma,
> etc.

Curiously, I used some data from Chu's experiments cooling of gasses down to 43 microK
when answered to Dono's challenge in the thread about matter decreasing with temperature.

Now, as I read, he has a bureaucratic position at the government.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:07:13 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > By the way, if you use this site and expand and ask for those exerting
> > influence between 2010 and 2020, you’ll find a fair number of
> > experimentalists in there, which weren’t in the list in the OP. People like
> > Riess, Schmidt, Perlmutter, Burrell, Barish, Chu, Lederman, Wilson, Verma,
> > etc.
> Curiously, I used some data from Chu's experiments cooling of gasses down to 43 microK
> when answered to Dono's challenge in the thread about matter decreasing with temperature.
>
You are an imbecile, you would not understand a scientific paper if your life depended on it.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:54:44 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:07:13 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > By the way, if you use this site and expand and ask for those exerting
> > > influence between 2010 and 2020, you’ll find a fair number of
> > > experimentalists in there, which weren’t in the list in the OP. People like
> > > Riess, Schmidt, Perlmutter, Burrell, Barish, Chu, Lederman, Wilson, Verma,
> > > etc.
> > Curiously, I used some data from Chu's experiments cooling of gasses down to 43 microK
> > when answered to Dono's challenge in the thread about matter decreasing with temperature.
> >
> You are an imbecile, you would not understand a scientific paper if your life depended on it.

Aren't there both Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac condensates?

Doesn't that all read out from "Fritz London"?

Ah, you mean "just got some influence" via "influential".

Though Weinberg looks enduring.

And 't Hooft and apologetics for Penrose and FLRW and so on.

Those were all influential in the '70's though or for then 't Hooft and so on.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:54:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> You are an imbecile, you would not understand a scientific paper if your life depended on it.

I would, Dono. I did, I do and I will do in the foreseeable future and this fact, which you know is true,
is the cause of all your pain, anguish and short-circuits in your fucking, rotten and evil mind.

Why? Why? Why this MF acts as he do? Why, Lord!

Do you know why? Because I find pleasure into making new holes in the Swiss cheese that you have as a brain, Igor.

It can be a subtle fallacy very well hidden into the prose, it can be an impossible to disprove assertion, it can be
just a ridiculous thought posed as truth or something else.

For me, regarding you, it's like a cat and a mouse play, Igor. And you are the mouse, by the way.

Got it? Imbecile genetic garbage pretending to be a person. You are a broken thing, a very disturbing broken thing.

On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 10:50:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> How come a physicist of 70 years or older can be influential in the course
> of today's physics, when it's well known (for centuries) that creativity peaks
> before being 30 years old.
>
> Is this a sign that physics has stuck since late '70s, when they were young
> and in this range of creativity vs. age?
>
> I wonder.

It's most likely a function of the Internet and the social media which tends to
foster the Hollywood-esque lionising of celebrities. As far as the
physicists' ages, there was a study done a decade or tw ago comparing the average
age of a significant contributor in physics and in mathematics. The (perhaps)
surprising conclusion was that the average significant contribution in mathematics
happens in the late 20s and in physics in the early 40s. (That's why mathematicians
can get away with the age restriction (40) for their Fields medal; in physics this
would be untenable).

The reason is most likely that in order to contribute significantly to mathematics, it
is possible to learn A LOT about a rather NARROW field, which doesn't take as
much time. In physics OTOH in order to contribute one must have FAPP the
entire physics under one's belt, to a reasonable extent. This takes time.

--
Jan

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:38:00 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:54:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You are an imbecile, you would not understand a scientific paper if your life depended on it.
> I would, Dono. I did,

No, you don't and never will. Look at the imbecilities you posted about relativistic length contraction and about the Lorentz transforms. Face it, Dick, you are an imbecile. Your only consolation is that you wil die an imbecile.

JanPB wrote:

> The reason is most likely that in order to contribute significantly to
> mathematics, it is possible to learn A LOT about a rather NARROW field,
> which doesn't take as much time. In physics OTOH in order to contribute
> one must have FAPP the entire physics under one's belt, to a reasonable
> extent. This takes time.

It has nothing to do with the New World Order, NWO, but the ancient human
sacrifices, to please the gods, when the ruling public_servants were
expecting draught, famine, locust etc.

that's exactly what these capitalist covid-19 vaccines are. Murdering
humans and children for the sake of "climate change" and "overpopulation".
It's 100% the same thing. Read your Bible, before making a fool of
yourself.

Xavier wrote:

> JanPB wrote:
>
>> The reason is most likely that in order to contribute significantly to
>> mathematics, it is possible to learn A LOT about a rather NARROW field,
>> which doesn't take as much time. In physics OTOH in order to contribute
>> one must have FAPP the entire physics under one's belt, to a reasonable
>> extent. This takes time.
>
> It has nothing to do with the New World Order, NWO, but the ancient
> human sacrifices, to please the gods, when the ruling public_servants
> were expecting draught, famine, locusts etc.

should be "drought" of course. Plagues, wars likewise.

> that's exactly what these capitalist covid-19 vaccines are. Murdering
> humans and children for the sake of "climate change" and
> "overpopulation".
> It's 100% the same thing. Read your Bible, before making a fool of
> yourself.

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 17:42:38 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:38:00 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:54:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > You are an imbecile, you would not understand a scientific paper if your life depended on it.
> > I would, Dono. I did,
> No, you don't and never will. Look at the imbecilities you posted about relativistic length contraction and about the Lorentz transforms. Face it, Dick, you are an imbecile. Your only consolation is that you wil die an imbecile.

In the meantime in the real world, however, real
clocks of real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.