Enough with the exaggeration; let Yang Zhenning rest in peace! 

March 11, 2025 — Exterior of the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. On this day, the CCP’s National People's Congress concluded. (Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images)

[People News] Yang Zhenning has recently passed away, and while it is important to show respect for the deceased, the current level of adulation he is receiving has become increasingly outrageous. Some are claiming he is the greatest physicist since Einstein, ranking among the top ten in academic history, and even comparing him to giants like Newton, Einstein, and Maxwell. 

When Yang Zhenning was alive, no one dared to make such grand claims; why is there a rush to deify him now that he is gone? Is it because he can no longer defend himself? 

It is true that Yang Zhenning was a master in theoretical physics, particularly for his contributions to particle physics and statistical physics in the latter half of the 20th century, placing him among the elite. However, this work was primarily about refining and enhancing existing paradigms, whereas Newton, Einstein, and Maxwell were the pioneers who established these foundational frameworks. One was a trailblazer, while the others built upon that legacy; the two cannot be equated. 

In reality, Yang Zhenning's academic peak occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, and by the 1970s, he began to step back from the forefront, completely withdrawing from the leading edge of theoretical physics in the 1980s and 1990s. Thus, his academic standing was established and well-defined quite early on. 

For instance, in December 1999, the millennium special issue of 'Physics World' distributed a questionnaire with seven questions to over 250 physicists worldwide via fax and email, with the second question asking: Which five physicists have made significant contributions to the field of physics?

Among the approximately 130 responses received, the top ten figures were: Einstein with 119 votes, Newton with 96 votes, Maxwell with 67 votes, Bohr with 47 votes, Heisenberg with 30 votes, Galileo with 27 votes, Feynman with 23 votes, and both Dirac and Schrödinger with 22 votes each. Rutherford received 20 votes, while Boltzmann, Faraday, and Planck each garnered 16 votes. In contrast, Yang Zhenning and 29 others received only one vote each.

While this is not a strict academic ranking, the voting results do provide some insight into the opinions within the physics community. If we group the votes into tiers of five, Yang Zhenning ranks alongside Doppler, Langevin, Lorentz, Hubble, Pauli, Gibbs, and Landau. If we use a ten-vote tier system, he is on par with Fermi and Marie Curie.

Each of these names is iconic and widely recognised; even those who are not well-versed in the history of physics have likely heard of them. Being mentioned in the same breath as these figures underscores Yang Zhenning's stature and significance, and excessive flattery could potentially detract from his reputation.

Additionally, there is an intriguing perspective that praises Yang Zhenning by noting that the 'violation of parity in weak interactions' he proposed with Li Zhengdao won the Nobel Prize the very next year. This suggests that the pattern of the Nobel Prize being 'delayed' does not apply to Yang Zhenning. The underlying message is that Yang Zhenning is so exceptional that he has transcended the usual norms associated with the Nobel Prize.

This notion is, of course, absurd. The discoveries made by Yang Li (Yang Li) and others are indeed groundbreaking, much like the Michelson-Morley experiment that demonstrated the non-existence of ether, fundamentally challenging the established assumptions within the physics community. However, the reason parity violation was awarded the Nobel Prize the following year was simply due to the maturity of experimental technology at that time, which allowed for rapid testing of the theory.

Parity violation was proposed in 1956 and confirmed in 1957 through β decay experiments conducted by Wu Jianxiong (Wu Jianxiong) and her colleagues. It was this revolutionary theory, backed by substantial experimental data, that led the Nobel Prize committee to decide to grant the award. Had there been no means to verify the theory at that time, regardless of how revolutionary it sounded or how flawless it appeared, it would have been impossible to receive the Nobel Prize.

Einstein serves as a prime example; among his many achievements, the most significant are the general theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity, both of which are invaluable to modern physics. However, the Nobel Prize was not awarded for these two theories, but rather for the photoelectric effect, which was ranked third among his contributions.

The rationale is straightforward: relativity, particularly general relativity, was perceived as astonishingly complex within the cosmological framework of the time, effectively shattering conventional understanding. Although the bending of light observed during the solar eclipse in 1919 confirmed Einstein's predictions, and the physics community had gradually begun to accept the theory, the verification methods available were limited, resulting in findings that were not fully substantiated. Consequently, the conservative Nobel Prize committee adhered to their principles and refrained from awarding the prize.

Einstein waited for forty to fifty years and, until his death, never received another Nobel Prize for his theory of relativity. Does this mean that Einstein is not as great as Yang Zhenning? Or that relativity is less significant than the conservation of parity? Clearly, that is not the case.

Certainly, the reason Yang Zhenning receives such enthusiastic praise is not solely based on academic merit; there are also political factors at play. After all, in addition to being a great physicist, he is also regarded as an 'outstanding patriot'.

Nevertheless, his primary identity remains that of a physicist. The final assessments should be left to historians of science and science commentators, so let’s allow him some leeway.

(Source: China Digital Times)
△