Skip to main content

Toasty surprise

A while ago, I wrote a book on misconceptions in science (called Lightning Often Strikes Twice). In it, I mentioned the inverted misconception that toast doesn't really fall butter side down. It feels like it should be a myth. But it is a real thing.

Entertainingly, this myth was 'disproved' by the BBC in 1991, using a device that flipped a slice of toast in the air, rather like flipping a coin. Although it wasn't quite 50:50, not entirely surprisingly, on the whole the buttered and non-buttered sides ended up downwards roughly evenly. 

But what the producers seemed to have missed is that there isn't much toast flipping going on in our kitchens. What usually happens is either that toast slips off a plate in our hands, or off a worktop. Both of these tend to occur at around waist height. And without a forced spin to get them going, the chances are high that the toast will only have time to revolve half a turn in the fall. It usually starts butter side up (that's certainly how my toast goes on the plate)... so it ends up butter side down.

To accompany my talk based on the book I made a very short video demonstration of this. It seemed a shame to limit this to those who had a chance to come along and see the talk - so, for your delectation, here it is...


Image from Unsplash by Seriously Low Carb

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here


Comments

  1. I mentioned a similar explanation in my Fake Physics book, referencing an Ig-Nobel prizewinning paper from 1995 (R.A.J. Matthews: "Tumbling toast, Murphy’s law and the fundamental constants", Eur. J. Phys, 16(4), 172): "According to Matthews, the actual presence of butter on the toast is irrelevant to the dynamics of the problem, except insofar as it defines the “top” side of the toast in its initial configuration. He then argues that, as the toast falls a typical distance to the floor (e.g. from a table-top), the laws of physics imply that it will complete less than one revolution and hence land the other way up."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense