Peer Review of the Egg Drop Experiment: A Critical Analysis

Feedback is your go-to source for the latest news in science and technology from New Scientist. If you have intriguing items to share, please reach out to [email protected].

Egg vs. Grind

Feedback takes us back to the early days of the 2020 lockdown, when we found ourselves learning alongside our children. This involved engaging in various science-related activities, including setting up experiments for “mini beasts,” which provided a diversion from the complexities of life. Thankfully, we avoided the mishaps of the egg drop experiment.

This hands-on activity challenges kids to create devices that protect eggs from breaking when dropped from a height onto a hard surface. Feedback humorously envisions using a cocktail umbrella as a makeshift parachute to soften the landing. However, there are more serious approaches to this experiment.

A study published in Communication Physics on May 8th highlights the peer-reviewed work of physicist Carmela Padavik Callaghan, who addresses the classic egg drop experiment.

The researchers challenge the common belief that eggs are strongest when dropped vertically from their edge. Traditional wisdom has suggested that the shell’s rigidity in this position reduces breakage. However, after conducting “hundreds of experiments” alongside “static and dynamic simulations,” they found that dropping eggs vertically increases the likelihood of breakage. Instead, they recommend dropping them horizontally for better results.

They note: “By orienting the eggs along the equator, there is a slight benefit, as they can survive a fall from about 0.3 mm above the vertical drop without cracking.”

For readers contemplating an egg toss at a celebrity, this research offers practical guidance for ensuring a successful impact!

Alien Mathematics

What exactly are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), previously known as UFOs? According to research by Karim Daghbouche of the German nonprofit Gridsat Stiftung, reverse engineering these phenomena is incredibly complex.

If an unidentified flying object is under scrutiny, reverse engineering its operation could unveil its mechanics. However, Daghbouche highlights the significant challenges, as data collection difficulties and “unknown physics” complicate the process of understanding unconventional propulsion systems.

The mathematical hurdles are formidable, with “NP Complete” signifying a specific type of intricate problem. It may even escalate to Pspace-hard or an entscheidungsproblem, the latter being virtually unsolvable for those unfamiliar with advanced mathematics.

News editor Jacob Aron calls it “incredible,” and Feedback concurs. If potential explanations range from extraterrestrial technology to time travelers and dimensions, narrowing down a single answer becomes problematic.

This might illustrate the notion of “no kidding, Sherlock,” as scientific inquiries often culminate in seemingly obvious conclusions. Yet, if NP is complete, does that really signify a non-solution?

Alternatively, we could ponder a human-centric interpretation of UAPs, attributing them to “honest mistakes.” In that framework, NP would no longer be incomplete, and the situation could become far more manageable.

Feedback was surprised by the concluding remarks in the paper’s summary, which stated that “UAP is deemed UAP because it behaves like modern smartphones in the hands of Neanderthals.”

Feedback believes Neanderthals could likely figure out how to use an iPhone. Thus, more nuanced interpretations of UAPs could emerge.

I’ve Squared

In our mathematical mindset, Brendan Ash notes that we are in a “squared year”: 2025 is 45². The next one won’t come until 2116.

This got Brendan reminiscing about a curious incident from a few years ago during a lengthy road trip. He and his son had fun looking up famous individuals who were born one year and passed the next. Not many fit that description, but Russian neurologist Ivan Pavlov (famous for his dog and bell experiments) was “born in 43 squared” [1849] and died at 44 squared [1936].

A darker thought struck Brendan— “I was also intrigued that Pope Francis was born in 44 squared and quickly predicted his death in 2025.”

For those of us who make such throwaway jokes, there exists a peculiar psychological torment in having such ideas materialize. “My predictions are now fulfilled. I cannot fathom how sinful I should feel,” Brendan reflects.

Have you shared your feedback?

You can send your stories to [email protected]. Don’t forget to include your home address. Previous feedback can also be found on our website.