I am sort of surprised that no one has countered with the quote often misattributed to Lord Kelvin. More interesting was the advice given to Max Planck: One of

I am sort of surprised that no one has countered with the quote often misattributed to Lord Kelvin. More interesting was the advice given to Max Planck: One of Jolly's students at the University of Munich was Max Planck, whom he advised in 1878 not to go into theoretical physics.[5] Nevertheless, Planck's later work lead to the discovery of quantum mechanics.[5] Later in life Planck reported:[2][6] As I began my university studies I asked my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly for advice regarding the conditions and prospects of my chosen field of study. He described physics to me as a highly developed, nearly fully matured science, that through the crowning achievement of the discovery of the principle of conservation of energy it will arguably soon take its final stable form. It may yet keep going in one corner or another, scrutinizing or putting in order a jot here and a tittle there, but the system as a whole is secured, and theoretical physics is noticeably approaching its completion to the same degree as geometry did centuries ago. That was the view fifty years ago of a respected physicist at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_von_Jolly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_von_Jolly Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_geometry#20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_geometry#20th_cent... Math is not running out of problems just like physics didn't stop advancing (or merely become more precise measurement) in the 19th and 20th centuries. Something new an innovative might be around the corner — it might not. It might result in a new field entirely. It might not.