Research Tool Bench

Does a Champagne Cork Really Break the Sound Barrier?

Last updated 2026-08-25

Every New Year's Eve the same physics fact does a lap online: popping champagne is a sonic boom in miniature. A few science-news outlets have already caught the sloppy version of that claim and corrected it — it's the escaping carbon dioxide, not the cork itself, that goes supersonic. That correction is real. What we wanted to know was whether the specific numbers behind it hold up once you read the underlying research directly instead of the articles about it. Mostly, they don't agree with each other.

The claim

Popping a champagne bottle launches the cork fast enough to break the sound barrier — commonly illustrated with a headline speed (50 mph is the figure that recurs most) and framed as a genuine sonic boom.

Source trail

Two separate research lineages get cited for this, usually without being told apart. The older one: physicist Friedrich Balck at what is now Clausthal University of Technology built a measuring rig for a German TV segment in December 2008 and has kept adding to his own physics pages since. The newer one: two independent peer-reviewed fluid-dynamics papers, Liger-Belair, Cordier and Georges in Science Advances (2019) and Wagner, Scheichl and Braun in Physics of Fluids (2024), both used high-speed imaging to separate the cork's own speed from the speed of the gas that follows it out of the bottle. A widely repeated eye-injury figure from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) runs alongside both, cited by nearly every article on the topic — often incorrectly.

What's confirmed

What isn't

Verdict

The core correction already circulating is right: the cork itself is not what breaks the sound barrier. Three independent measurements — one physicist's own rig, and two separate peer-reviewed papers thirty years apart in method — put the cork at roughly 40 to 72 km/h (25 to 45 mph), nowhere near supersonic. It's specifically the escaping CO2 gas that goes supersonic, confirmed by both peer-reviewed papers. But almost none of the specific numbers riding along with that correct headline hold up under a direct read of the sources they're credited to: "100 mph" traces to no primary source we could find, a widely repeated "50 mph" doesn't match the American Academy of Ophthalmology's own current page, and the two peer-reviewed papers' own gas-speed figures — 400 m/s versus "nearly Mach 2" — don't match each other either.

Same shape as what animal is fastest over distance, not sprint?, where the underlying reversal (pronghorn beats cheetah) holds up but almost nobody repeating it uses the same sustained-speed number for it. Also related: is the Eiffel Tower taller in summer?, where the physics is real but no source, official or popular, cites an actual measurement behind its own centimetre figure. More research briefs.