How do you rank a scientist?

Like if you were to make a list of top ten scientists of all time,

how would you start categorizing them?

What metric would you use?

How do you score them and award points? Well, my perspective is to measure their

change. And here's a little bit of physics nerd trivia for you, just because I know how much you

love this. When we measure change in physics, we use the Greek letter delta, and specifically

capital delta for big changes and then little delta for little changes. But delta is the term we use the Greek letter delta, and specifically capital delta for big changes, and then

little delta for little changes, but delta is the term we use to measure change or to quantify

change. So my perspective, to rank a scientist to measure the impact of a scientist is to measure

their delta. And so in this concept, scientists who create a bigger delta are the

most significant because they change the most. And with this measure, it's easy to see how the

greats came to be the greats. Newton changed our understanding of motion itself. And then he changed

our understanding of gravity and made it universal.

Those are big changes. That's a big delta. Einstein unified space and time. He kick-started

quantum mechanics. He gave us a new fresh perspective on gravity, which birthed gravitational

waves and black holes in the Big Bang itself. That's a huge

delta. Most scientists create only very small deltas. They only change one little bit of their field,

and yes, I'm including myself in that. In other words, if those scientists hadn't existed,

then their field of research wouldn't look much different.

Not that their work isn't important, but it's just a small delta.

And multiple scientists working over generations, all of their small deltas can add up to a big capital delta.

...