Physics in the kitchen

During the meal, as we eat we note how good the food is, where there is room for improvement and what is particularly liked. In effect we analyse the results of the experiment – the good scientific cook will keep notes of these discussions and use them to draw preliminary conclusions about how to improve the recipe. After several more tests of the recipe, we may then begin to derive a model to explain our results and to understand how and why making small changes to the recipe produces different qualities in the final dish – we can then use that understanding and apply it to other recipes, so continually improving our cooking skills.This is nothing more than the application of the scientific method to cookery – simple but highly effective. If taken seriously and applied properly there is no excuse for any scientifically trained person not to become a superb cook.But is there more to physics in the kitchen than ensuring physicists are good cooks? Can physics help chefs with no scientific background improve their own cooking? Is this really an area that is worth the attention of serious physicists? Is there new physics to be learned from the study of gastronomy? My unsurprising opinion is that there is good physics to be learned in the kitchen and that investigating the science of cooking is a worthwhile academic pursuit – but of course I would believe that as I have been doing it for more than 25 years now. So perhaps it is time to examine more critically whether it is indeed a worthwhile occupation.One of the most basic kitchen operations is to heat food to change its texture or chemical make-up (or both). To ensure some degree of consistency between cooks there is a need to have some assurance that the temperatures used in different kitchens are closely similar (if not the same). Without the use of expensive scientific equipment the only easy way is to use a phase transition that occurs at a fixed temperature – and the simplest and most accessible of these is to us