There is nothing wrong with the research in the paper but why did Nature publish this? Seeing as it is so selective and only publishes papers of the greatest significance, this paper seems an odd choice for such a prestigious journal.
If no other work had been done on this problem before then there would be no issue here but other papers have been written, and they are referenced in the Nature paper. Curiously, those other papers also make the point that friction is necessary to make the spinning object stand up. The only real difference here is that the egg is chosen rather than a tippy-top (which is more like half an egg with a stick on it).
Overall, this paper seems to be an incremental contribution and a small one at that. (The general ideas as reported widely are well-known - for many years I have taught classes that the reason a tippy-top, spun football, etc. stand on end is because of friction+conservation of angular momentum, etc.)
Or maybe Nature was just caught up in the Easter spirit...or maybe looking for good publicity... I wonder how long they had been sitting on the paper waiting for the Easter issue to come out...
In the original post, James Salsman asks: "Credible or crackpot? You be the judge."
Worth noting is that the American Physical Society allows any member or any person sponsored by a member to present a paper at an APS March or April meeting. Furthermore, any person can become an APS member.
The point of those APS meetings is open discussion of all topics in physics without the society making a judgement on the validity of the work.
So James' question is a good - you, as an individual, be the judge because the APS is making no statement whatsoever about the validity of the work.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing wrong with the research in the paper but why did Nature publish this? Seeing as it is so selective and only publishes papers of the greatest significance, this paper seems an odd choice for such a prestigious journal.
If no other work had been done on this problem before then there would be no issue here but other papers have been written, and they are referenced in the Nature paper. Curiously, those other papers also make the point that friction is necessary to make the spinning object stand up. The only real difference here is that the egg is chosen rather than a tippy-top (which is more like half an egg with a stick on it).
Overall, this paper seems to be an incremental contribution and a small one at that. (The general ideas as reported widely are well-known - for many years I have taught classes that the reason a tippy-top, spun football, etc. stand on end is because of friction+conservation of angular momentum, etc.)
Or maybe Nature was just caught up in the Easter spirit...or maybe looking for good publicity... I wonder how long they had been sitting on the paper waiting for the Easter issue to come out...
In the original post, James Salsman asks: "Credible or crackpot? You be the judge."
Worth noting is that the American Physical Society allows any member or any person sponsored by a member to present a paper at an APS March or April meeting. Furthermore, any person can become an APS member.
The point of those APS meetings is open discussion of all topics in physics without the society making a judgement on the validity of the work.
So James' question is a good - you, as an individual, be the judge because the APS is making no statement whatsoever about the validity of the work.