In my view the simple explanation that there's more to learn before reaching the cutting edge seems credible.
Biology is another area. I live in a town where there's a lot of biology research, and there are start-up businesses, but they aren't formed by kids who skipped college to get rich. Instead, the typical start-up founder could be anywhere from 40 to 60. It takes a long time to learn biology.
Another possibility to consider is that math research takes more time now because it resembles more of a search than an inventive process. If proof is computer-aided, for instance, then an Edisonian approach could be applied to finding a proof for a theorem (or at least, finding important steps), resulting in discovery of proofs being a matter of time, even for the most brilliant mathematician.
Make no mistake, math research is very much an inventive process.
In particular, it's much more than just proving theorems. Mathematicians need to come up with ideas worth investigating, and that (in addition to writing proofs) often requires creativity.
Biology is another area. I live in a town where there's a lot of biology research, and there are start-up businesses, but they aren't formed by kids who skipped college to get rich. Instead, the typical start-up founder could be anywhere from 40 to 60. It takes a long time to learn biology.
Another possibility to consider is that math research takes more time now because it resembles more of a search than an inventive process. If proof is computer-aided, for instance, then an Edisonian approach could be applied to finding a proof for a theorem (or at least, finding important steps), resulting in discovery of proofs being a matter of time, even for the most brilliant mathematician.
(edited for spelling)