APPLIED FIZZICS Field Notes · Edition #2

Looking at the universe through a glass of Champagne.

Missed Edition #1? Browse the Field Notes archive or browse the Recent Posts.

Previously in Field Notes

In the last Field Notes, I ended with a quiz:

Suppose you had a perfectly clean, perfectly smooth glass with no microscopic scratches, dust particles, or fibers. Would bubbles form normally? 

A) Form normally
B) Form much more slowly
C) Not form at all until the liquid was disturbed

The correct answer was C.

A perfectly clean glass wouldn't bubble at all—at least not until something disturbed the liquid.

Many of you got it right. Special thanks to Mikey, who brought up the fascinating subject of cavitation, which we'll return to later, and Larry, who correctly reasoned that bubbles simply have nowhere to begin without a nucleation site.

I also received several thoughtful questions that inspired today's Field Notes. Keep them coming—I read every reply, and they could become the inspiration for the next edition.

The night I saw a glass that didn’t bubble

Years ago, I actually saw a glass that didn't bubble.

I had just finished demonstrating one of the very first Perlage prototypes to the U.S. brand manager of Krug in Manhattan in 2005. The meeting went well, so that evening we celebrated with a bottle of Krug Champagne at a nearby restaurant.

The owner himself poured the Champagne.

I picked up my glass. I held it up to the light.

Something was wrong.

Not. One. Bubble.

The Champagne looked like apple juice.

I dipped my finger into the glass.

Instantly, tiny streams of bubbles raced upward from my fingertip.

The Champagne wasn't flat.

The glass was simply too clean.

I called the owner over and pointed towards my glass.

"Oh my goodness, Sir," he said. "I'm terribly sorry! I'll get you another bottle immediately."

He reached for my glass.

"No!" I said. "This is a miracle! I've never seen this happen before!"

I demonstrated the bubbles again by dipping my finger into the wine, then launched into an enthusiastic explanation of nucleation sites.

Finally, I asked if I could keep the glass.

He looked completely bewildered. Then he found me a zip-lock plastic bag.

I suspect he thought giving me the glass was the only way to shut me up!

The bubbles are not the main event

So if a perfectly clean glass doesn't bubble, why wouldn't the Champagne stay fizzy forever?

Here's another surprise.

Most people assume Champagne loses its carbonation only through the bubbles they can see.

It doesn't.

The bubbles are the spectacular part, but they aren't the main event.

Roughly 80% of the dissolved carbon dioxide quietly escapes by diffusing directly across the surface of the wine into the surrounding air. This happens one molecule at a time, and is completely invisible to the naked eye.

Only about 20% leaves inside the bubbles themselves.

In other words, even if you could magically eliminate every visible bubble in your glass, the Champagne would still go flat.

Just a little more quietly.

I find that astonishing. The bubbles are what make Champagne seem alive, yet they're responsible for only a small fraction of the carbon dioxide that actually escapes.

Why doesn’t the bottle bubble like the glass?

That leads to an even more interesting question.

We now know that bubbles need microscopic gas pockets to get started.

So why doesn't a freshly opened bottle of Champagne immediately begin bubbling from the glass walls, like a freshly poured glass of bubbly does?

After all, the inside of the bottle surely has those same tiny scratches and cellulose fibers that a fresh glass would have.

The answer lies in something called wetting.

You've seen this a million times. Maybe you're washing dishes, and you dunk a glass into the water and pull it out.

Notice how the water forms a perfectly smooth, continuous film over the glass.

Water naturally wants to spread across clean glass.

Physicists say the glass is wetted.

In the last edition of Field Notes, we talked about water wanting to stick to itself, and that's certainly true. Water molecules are polar, so they strongly attract one another through hydrogen bonding.

But water is also attracted to clean glass. Glass carries oxygen atoms on its surface that water molecules are attracted to. In fact, the attraction is so strong that the water prefers to spread across the glass rather than bead up into droplets. The water forms an extremely thin film over the surface because, energetically, that's the state it "likes" best.

But "likes" doesn't mean "completely." Water has an unusually high surface tension, which acts almost like an invisible elastic skin stretched over the surface of the liquid. Last time I compared surface tension to the skin of a balloon, and that analogy turns out to be surprisingly good.

That analogy is actually almost literally true. Imagine stuffing a small water balloon into a glass. Because of the rubber balloon around the water, the water simply cannot get into every nook and cranny of the glass. The glass wouldn't be wetted at all.

So it is with Champagne poured into a glass: the surface tension of the liquid acts like an invisible skin that prevents the liquid from flowing into every little scratch and crevice.

What happens inside the bottle?

So what is going on in a bottle of Champagne that has been under a cork for years?

When the wine was first bottled and corked, the glass almost certainly contained thousands of tiny pockets of trapped air, clinging to scratches, cellulose fibers, and other microscopic imperfections.

But remember: Air is soluble in water too. We know this, because that's how fish breathe underwater.

Over the next hours or days, all the nitrogen and oxygen in every little trapped bubble of air diffuses into the wine, just as water evaporates from the sidewalk on a summer day. All the little bubbles of trapped air simply "evaporate." Molecule by molecule, the oxygen and nitrogen diffuse away into the wine until the bubbles disappear entirely.

Those potential nucleation sites disappear.

So when you open a bottle of Champagne, assuming you do not agitate it—oh, don't worry; we'll get to that—the bottle does not vigorously fizz like a freshly poured glass. That's because, over time, the glass bottle has become essentially completely wetted, and there are simply no pockets of trapped gas left to create nucleation sites.

So a freshly opened bottle of Champagne behaves like the perfectly clean glass I got that one night in Manhattan.

Physics Corner: a deeper dive for fellow science geeks

Here's how I would explain it to my physics students.

The pressure inside a sealed bottle of Champagne is typically around 5–6 atmospheres—roughly three times the pressure inside your car tire.

At that pressure, the gas inside those tiny pockets doesn't simply remain trapped forever. Gas molecules are constantly diffusing between the bubble and the surrounding liquid. Over time, those trapped air bubbles disappear, leaving behind fully wetted surfaces with no remaining nucleation sites.

When the bottle is opened, the pressure in the headspace drops instantly to atmospheric pressure. Now we have a beverage that is way out of equilibrium, with 5–6 atmospheres of dissolved carbon dioxide in solution and only one atmosphere holding it in.

The Champagne is now supersaturated with carbon dioxide, but it still needs someplace for the very first microscopic bubble to begin.

That's why the bubbles don't start until you pour the wine. During the pouring process, tiny pockets of air become trapped in microscopic scratches and fibers that aren't completely wetted, providing exactly the tiny "seed" bubbles needed for nucleation.

Nature still needs a place to get started.

Then someone shakes the bottle

But what if, instead of waiting for those tiny gas pockets to form naturally in a glass, you shake the bottle?

Now you've created tens of thousands of tiny air bubbles simply from the agitation. In fact, this has nothing uniquely to do with carbonation—you can create thousands of tiny bubbles by vigorously shaking an ordinary bottle of tap water. Try it. Fill a clear water bottle half full, put the cap on, and shake vigorously. Millions of tiny bubbles form just from the mechanical agitation of the water—it has almost nothing to do with dissolved gasses.

But if the liquid you're shaking is highly carbonated Champagne, every one of those tiny air bubbles suddenly becomes a potential nucleation site for carbon dioxide.

Now you don't have one or two places for bubbles to grow.

You have tens of thousands.

Within a fraction of a second, each tiny air bubble begins inflating with carbon dioxide, as CO₂ diffuses from the Champagne, where the concentration of CO₂ is high, into the bubbles, where the concentration of CO₂ is low.

Suddenly, you have millions of rapidly growing bubbles.

A shaken bottle creates thousands of tiny bubbles, and each one can become a nucleation site for dissolved CO₂.

Suddenly, you have a Game 7 locker-room celebration.

We'll pick up there next time.

Today's Pop Quiz

Here's another question I asked my students.

Suppose you pour two identical glasses of Champagne.

Glass A is producing beautiful streams of bubbles.

Glass B has almost no visible bubbles.

Which one will lose its carbonation first?

  • A) Glass A
  • B) Glass B
  • C) Nearly the same rate

I'd love to hear your best guess. I'll personally respond to every reply, and we'll explore the answer in Edition #3.

Now we finally have enough information to answer one of the oldest debates in Champagne: Which glass is best—a flute, a coupe...or something else?

I'll give you a hint.

It depends.

Stay tuned for Edition #3 of Field Notes where I'll give you what I think is the definitive answer to the question.

Until next time...

Stay curious.

Cheers,


Evan Wallace
President, Applied Fizzics Inc.
Makers of The Perlage System®

Want more Champagne science, carbonation experiments, and behind-the-scenes product stories? Visit the Applied Fizzics Field Notes archive.

    Comments

    Evan Wallace July 13, 2026

    Glass A will lose it’s bubbles first, because it is losing dissolved CO2 by both mechanisms, visible bubbles and diffusion. So if the claim is correct that 80% is lost by diffusion and 20% by bubbles, glass A would go flat about 25% faster than glass B.

    Showing: 1-1 of 1
    Leave a comment

    Please note, comments must be approved before they are published. Comments will be evaluated immediately.