Did Coca-Cola sponser/fund this study? Why the need for the label still being visible? Seems like you'd want to not obstruct the view behind the label, you know, for science. There's zero purpose for having a bottle with any label. The shape of the bottle is part of their trade mark, so it would be obvious anyways.

Apparently, I'm really sick of constant bombardment from corporate branding.

> There's zero purpose for having a bottle with any label.

Light interacts quite differently with the label than the material of the bottle. We get to observe scattering, diffusion, color... y'know, science stuff.

It is rather interesting that the first video (from 12 years ago) used a blank red label instead.

(See how it differs in from the rest of the bottle? I particularly like how it obscures the pulse itself and highlights the wavefront on the surface.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk&t=107

If there wasn't a label on this bottle it'd be so plain looking that you'd think it was a 3D render and not real.

I think you should just remember you live in a society and societies contain mass market brands that aren't going anywhere.

In particular with sodas, most of the indie ones are worse for you. Coke at least makes Coke Zero, all the indie ones with 2010-hipster branding have 60g sugar in each can.

Puzzling, I can see why a pop bottle, due to its shape, would make this more fun to look at than say a boring cylinder but why the free advertisement by leaving the label on?

It's not even that it's cola inside, obviously

> We use a collimated beam to illuminate a Coca-Cola bottle filled with water and a small amount of milk