Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What's the best age for a scientist?

  1. Sep 3, 2004 #1
    It is currently admitted that the best findings in Physics are produced by young scientists, being the Einstein's annus mirabilis a good example.

    But is it generally true?

    Is there a best age to make a creative research? If so, Why? What factors are determinant to peak the most relevant activity of a scientist into a narrow range of ages?

    Of course, is a general question. All we know cases of scientists with a rich production along all their lifetime.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 6, 2004 #2
    The only thing I can imagine is that young people are not conditioned yet by their self created world of logic. You could perhaps see experience as the restraint for creativity.
    Those who act on experience (the wise and elderly) are also bound to stay whithin the boundries of their lifetime package of knowledge. When you think you have all answers you are less likely to search for better ones. Also after a life of thinking A..., B can be a scary thing.
  4. Sep 7, 2004 #3
    But.. why experience would restrain creativity?
  5. Sep 7, 2004 #4
    IF you need to solve a problem, and you know a solution from experience, then you are unlikely to search for a new and perhaps better solution, while when you're young you are less likely to know a solution from experience and you rely on vreativity to find one. Try explaining to your grandfather that he should use E-mail in stead of sending paper letters by the mail. His solution (a letter) works fine for him and he will probably be reluctand to change to E-mail even though you tell him its faster and all. Now bearing that in mind what are the chances of such a man actually inventing E-mail.
    His experience (a paper letter works fine) prevents him from being creative (inventing E-mail).
  6. Sep 8, 2004 #5
    I see no evidence that the best findings in physics are produced by young people. Can someone try to back that up with some kind of factual basis?
  7. Sep 8, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    To be a good physicist, one must be a good mathematician as well. And we all know what G.H. Hardy famously said about mathematicians:

    I'm not trying to prove anything either way, I just agree with the quote. Look at the biography of almost any mathematician and you'll see that a large part of their productivity is within their 20's and 30's.
  8. Sep 8, 2004 #7
    Yes. It is only a general, subjective, impression. I was astonished by the Einstein's annus mirabilis and the productivity of other more recent scientists as Guth.
    But, It is possible that I be wrong. Furthermore, it would be convenient stablish age ranges to any discussion on this topic. What's about the following:
    minus than 30, 30 - 50, and more than 50 years old people?
  9. Sep 8, 2004 #8
    This may be attributed to spurts of dendrite growth in the brain as a person ages. The first dendrite growths occur at a very young age and mainly account for the development of language skills. Other dendrite growths occur during elementary and high school and are marked by quick, rapid mental development. These spurts are biological in nature, and if a scientist has one at the right time early in his or her career, it may lead to new insights or perspectives that will seem revolutionary. Now, as a person gets older, there are fewer and fewer dendrite spurts. This is not to say that a creative burst can only be caused by dendrite spurts, but the spurts definitely enhance the creativity and thereby gives younger scientists a slight biological advantage.
  10. Sep 9, 2004 #9
    What is the basis for this assert?
  11. Sep 9, 2004 #10
    The basis is in biology. I picked up the notion of dendrite spurts from an education course dealing with how the brain works and develops over time. Here are some links for more information:

    http://www.nbia.nf.ca/the_neuron.htm [Broken]
    http://pweb.jps.net/~cryocoo/periastron/mar2000/trulyltmem.htm [Broken]
    http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/undergraduate/psych240b-2/lectureslides/1 [Broken]

    Someone in the biology field may be able address the topic better in the biology section of the board.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Sep 9, 2004 #11
    Your links are related to some basic aspects of neurobiology. But there isn't enough knowledge to establish a clear answer to my question in neurobiological terms.
    Of course, it is clear that there are maturation periods and there is a growing knowledge about the mechanisms of memory (mainly in experimental, non-human, models), but we don't know the areas neither the mechanisms related to "creativity" or "intelligence" in wide sense.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  13. Sep 16, 2004 #12
    But...Is this because they keep coming up with new material, or because the university forces them to put out a certain number of articles each year? :smile:

    -Ruler of the Universe,
  14. Sep 16, 2004 #13
    It's a valid point I think, to relate such thinking to mathematical developement?

    But I would argue, that if the brain was damaged by stroke and pathways are not established again, then you would remain with the infirmaties. Mental imaging re-establishes the pathways, hence reconnecting pre established mathematical functions, as you would in, moving your arm again.

    So logical deductive reasoning would foundationally remain in creativity, in mathematics, as cognitive functions, and developing ones? If you loose this character feature, how do you restablish?

    I do not believe "age" debilitates the actions of creativity, or the ability to cognitively recognize limits in those mathematics. That's purely a philosophical position, and out of it, this new math?
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2004
  15. Sep 16, 2004 #14
    The pressure to publish is similar among different disciplines.
  16. Sep 16, 2004 #15
    hello everyone, ARTORIUS have said something interesting..
    about the dendrite spurts..
    i'm not a peacokish.. but i have langage skills... well i speak four langages and i'm learning the fifth and i am only 17..
    and my teachers always tell me that i have an ability of quick analysis..
    i admit i hate memorizing (especialy social sciences)..
    is it a sign of anything special?
    (i'm into astronomy, and next year i'm going to start university "astrophysics")..
    my IQ last time was 139
    i hope someone can interpret
    thanks a lot :)
  17. Sep 18, 2004 #16
    I think that it would be interesting for you the Champollion's biography.
  18. Sep 19, 2004 #17
    sorpresa para ti espaXol.. (ryokan)
    como evidencia sobre lo que digo..
    yo hablo espaXol..
    no es ordinario? :)
  19. Sep 19, 2004 #18
    Y yo francés, inglés, alemán, italiano y algo de ruso.
    Eres muy joven. Te faltan muchos años para comprender que cuanto más aprendas menos sabrás.
  20. Sep 20, 2004 #19
    porque dices eso?
  21. Sep 20, 2004 #20
    Porque creo que has hecho una cierta ostentación de inteligencia en tus "posts".
    Es estupendo ser inteligente como tú pareces ser. Pero no basta. No basta con acumular conocimientos ni es necesario demostrar capacidad intelectual. Eso es lo menos importante.
    Un afectuoso saludo.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook