Milan — The European Space Agency has refined its plan for the European Resilience from Space (ERS) program, outlining a €1 billion ($1.15 billion) framework that more directly ties Earth observation, telecommunications and navigation to Europe’s growing defense and security needs. The updated proposal will go before member states for approval at the Nov. 26–27 […]
Astranis announced plans Nov. 5 to roll out a mobile ad-hoc network service called Vanguard, using its small geostationary satellites to extend the range of point-to-point communications for disaster relief or secure defense operations.
From inflationary pressures and shifting interest rates to supply chain challenges and intensifying great-power competition, today’s macroeconomic and geopolitical forces are reshaping the future of space investment. For investors and businesses, navigating this environment means balancing capital market dynamics, technology cycles, and an increasingly complex landscape of export controls, trade restrictions, and government influence.
Enigmatic Inge Lehmann around the time she quit her job at Denmark’s Geodetic Institute in 1953. (Courtesy: GEUS)
In the 1930s a little-known Danish seismologist calculated that the Earth has a solid inner core, within the liquid outer core identified just a decade earlier. The international scientific community welcomed Inge Lehmann as a member of the relatively new field of geophysics – yet in her home country, Lehmann was never really acknowledged as more than a very competent keeper of instruments.
It was only after retiring from her seismologist job aged 65 that Lehmann was able to devote herself full time to research. For the next 30 years, Lehmann worked and published prolifically, finally receiving awards and plaudits that were well deserved. However, this remarkable scientist, who died in 1993 aged 104, rarely appears in short histories of her field.
In a step to address this, we now have a biography of Lehmann: If I Am Right, and I Know I Am by Hanne Strager, a Danish biologist, science museum director and science writer. Strager pieces together Lehmann’s life in great detail, as well as providing potted histories of the scientific areas that Lehmann contributed to.
A brief glance at the chronology of Lehmann’s education and career would suggest that she was a late starter. She was 32 when she graduated with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Copenhagen, 40 when she received her master’s degree in geodosy and was appointed state geodesist for Denmark. Lehmann faced a litany of struggles in her younger years, from health problems and money issues to the restrictions placed on most women’s education in the first decades of the 20th century.
The limits did not come from her family. Lehmann and her sister were sent to good schools, she was encouraged to attend university, and was never pressed to get married, which would likely have meant the end of her education. When she asked her father’s permission to go to the University of Cambridge, his objection was the cost – though the money was found and Lehmann duly went to Newnham College in 1910. While there she passed all the preliminary exams to study for Cambridge’s legendarily tough mathematical tripos but then her health forced her to leave.
Lehmann was suffering from stomach pains; she had trouble sleeping; her hair was falling out. And this was not her first breakdown. She had previously studied for a year at the University of Copenhagen before then, too, dropping out and moving to the countryside to recover her health.
The cause of Lehmann’s recurrent breakdowns is unknown. They unfortunately fed into the prevailing view of the time that women were too fragile for the rigours of higher learning. Strager attempts to unpick these historical attitudes from Lehmann’s very real medical issues. She posits that Lehmann had severe anxiety or a physical limitation to how hard she could push herself. But this conclusion fails to address the hostile conditions Lehmann was working in.
In Cambridge Lehmann formed firm friendships that lasted the rest of her life. But women there did not have the same access to learning as men. They were barred from most libraries and laboratories; could not attend all the lectures; were often mocked and belittled by professors and male students. They could sit exams but, even if they passed, would not be awarded a degree. This was a contributing factor when after the First World War Lehmann decided to complete her undergraduate studies in Copenhagen rather than Cambridge.
More than meets the eye
Lehmann is described as quiet, shy, reticent. But she could be eloquent in writing and once her career began she established connections with scientists all over the world by writing to them frequently. She was also not the wallflower she initially appeared to be. When she was hired as an assistant at Denmark’s Institute for the Measurement of Degrees, she quickly complained that she was being using as an office clerk, not a scientist, and she would not have accepted the job had she known this was the role. She was instead given geometry tasks that she found intellectually stimulating, which led her to seismology.
Unfortunately, soon after this Lehmann’s career development stalled. While her title of “state geodesist” sounds impressive, she was the only seismologist in Denmark for decades, responsible for all the seismographs in Denmark and Greenland. Her days were filled with the practicalities of instrument maintenance and publishing reports of all the data collected.
Intrepid Inge Lehmann at the Ittoqqortootmitt (Scoresbysund) seismic station in Greenland c. 1928. A keen hiker, Lehmann was comfortable in cold and remote environments. (Courtesy: GEUS)
Despite repeated requests Lehmann didn’t receive an assistant, which meant she never got round to completing a PhD, though she did work towards one in her evenings and weekends. Time and again opportunities for career advancement went to men who had the title of doctor but far less real experience in geophysics. Even after she co-founded the Danish Geophysical Society in 1934, her native country overlooked her.
The breakthrough that should have changed this attitude from the men around her came in 1936, when she published “P’ ”. This innocuous sounding paper was revolutionary, but based firmly in the P wave and S wave measurements that Lehmann routinely monitored.
In If I Am Right, and I Know I Am, Strager clearly explains what P and S waves are. She also highlights why they were being studied by both state seismologist Lehmann and Cambridge statistician Harold Jeffreys, and how they led to both scientists’ biggest breakthroughs.
After any seismological disturbance, P and S waves propagate through the Earth. P waves move at different speeds according to the material they encounter, while S waves cannot pass through liquid or air. This knowledge allowed Lehmann to calculate whether any fluctuations in seismograph readings were earthquakes, and if so where the epicentre was located. And it led to Jeffreys’ insight that the Earth must have a liquid core.
Lehmann’s attention to detail meant she spotted a “discontinuity” in P waves that did not quite match a purely liquid core. She immediately wrote to Jeffreys that she believed there was another layer to the Earth, a solid inner core, but he was dismissive – which led to her writing the statement that forms the title of this book. Undeterred, she published her discovery in the journal of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics.
Home from home
In 1951 Lehmann visited the institution that would become her second home: the Lamont Geological Observatory in New York state. Its director Maurice Ewing invited her to work there on a sabbatical, arranging all the practicalities of travel and housing on her behalf.
Here, Lehmann finally had something she had lacked her entire career: friendly collaboration with colleagues who not only took her seriously but also revered her. Lehmann took retirement from her job in Denmark and began to spend months of every year at the Lamont Observatory until well into her 80s.
Valued colleague A farewell party held for Inge Lehmann in 1954 at Lamont Geological Observatory after one of her research stays. (Courtesy: GEUS)
Though Strager tells us this “second phase” of Lehmann’s career was prolific, she provides little detail about the work Lehmann did. She initially focused on detecting nuclear tests during the Cold War. But her later work was more varied, and continued after she lost most of her vision. Lehmann published her final paper aged 99.
If I Am Right, and I Know I Am is bookended with accounts of Strager’s research into one particular letter sent to Lehmann, an anonymous (because the final page has been lost) declaration of love. It’s an insight into the lengths Strager went to – reading all the surviving correspondence to and from Lehmann; interviewing living relatives and colleagues; working with historians both professional and amateur; visiting archives in several countries.
But for me it hit the wrong tone. The preface and epilogue are mostly speculation about Lehmann’s love life. Lehmann destroyed a lot of her personal correspondence towards the end of her life, and chose what papers to donate to an archive. To me those are the actions of a woman who wants to control the narrative of her life – and does not want her romances to be written about. I would have preferred instead another chapter about her later work, of which we know she was proud.
But for the majority of its pages, this is a book of which Strager can be proud. I came away from it with great admiration for Lehmann and an appreciation for how lonely life was for many women scientists even in recent history.
A realistic and cost-effective path for the United States to advance the exploration and development of the moon, and to keep our nation in the forefront of that enterprise, is to dramatically increase robotic exploration efforts and to focus with urgency on a comprehensive campaign to collect and return geologic samples from a wide range […]
In space policy today, Republican views dominate. The party holds majorities in the House and Senate, while the White House is stretching — or breaking — the limits of executive power. Democratic views on space are largely couched in terms of opposition to White House initiatives, such as proposed cuts in NASA’s budget or efforts […]
German satellite manufacturer Reflex Aerospace has raised 50 million euros ($57.4 million) as it rides a growing wave of interest and investment in European space systems.
The LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA collaboration has detected strong evidence for second-generation black holes, which were formed from earlier mergers of smaller black holes. The two gravitational wave signals provide one of the strongest confirmations to date for how Einstein’s general theory of relativity describes rotating black holes. Studying such objects also provides a testbed for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model.
Over the past decade, the global network of interferometers operated by LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA have detected close to 300 gravitational waves (GWs) – mostly from the mergers of binary black holes.
In October 2024, the network detected a clear signal that pointed back to a merger that occurred 700 million light–years away. The progenitor black holes were 20 and 6 solar masses and the larger object was spinning at 370 Hz, which makes it one of the fastest-spinning black holes ever observed.
Just one month later, the collaboration detected the coalescence of another highly imbalanced binary (17 and 8 solar masses), 2.4 billion light–years away. This signal was even more unusual – showing for the first time that the larger companion was spinning in the opposite direction of the binary orbit.
Massive and spinning
While conventional wisdom says black holes should not be spinning at such high rates, the observations were not entirely unexpected. “With both events having one black hole, which is both significantly more massive than the other and rapidly spinning, [the observations] provide tantalizing evidence that these black holes were formed from previous black hole mergers,” explains Stephen Fairhurst at Cardiff University, spokesperson of the LIGO Collaboration. If this were the case, the two GW signals – called GW241011 and GW241110 – are first observations of second-generation black holes. This is because when a binary merges, the resulting second-generation object tends to have a large spin.
The GW241011 signal was particularly clear, which allowed the team to make the third-ever observation of higher harmonic modes. These are overtones in the GW signal that become far clearer when the masses of the coalescing bodies are highly imbalanced.
The precision of the GW241011 measurement provides one of the most stringent verifications so far of general relativity. The observations also support Roy Kerr’s prediction that rapid rotation distorts the shape of a black hole.
Kerr and Einstein confirmed
“We now know that black holes are shaped like Einstein and Kerr predicted, and general relativity can add two more checkmarks in its list of many successes,” says team member Carl-Johan Haster at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “This discovery also means that we’re more sensitive than ever to any new physics that might lie beyond Einstein’s theory.”
This new physics could include hypothetical particles called ultralight bosons. These could form in clouds just outside the event horizons of spinning black holes, and would gradually drain a black hole’s rotational energy via a quantum effect called superradiance.
The idea is that the observed second-generation black holes had been spinning for billions of years before their mergers occurred. This means that if ultralight bosons were present, they cannot have removed lots of angular momentum from the black holes. This places the tightest constraint to date on the mass of ultralight bosons.
“Planned upgrades to the LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA detectors will enable further observations of similar systems,” Fairhurst says. “They will enable us to better understand both the fundamental physics governing these black hole binaries and the astrophysical mechanisms that lead to their formation.”
Haster adds, “Each new detection provides important insights about the universe, reminding us that each observed merger is both an astrophysical discovery but also an invaluable laboratory for probing the fundamental laws of physics”.
New diagnostic kits aim to revolutionize early screening of the disease, potentially allowing patients to receive treatments—such as monoclonal antibodies—sooner.
Quantum error correction codes protect quantum information from decoherence and quantum noise, and are therefore crucial to the development of quantum computing and the creation of more reliable and complex quantum algorithms. One example is the five-qubit error correction code, five being the minimum number of qubits required to fix single-qubit errors. These contain five physical qubits (a basic off/on unit of quantum information made using trapped ions, superconducting circuits, or quantum dots) to correct one logical qubit (a collection of physical qubits arranged in such a way as to correct errors). Yet imperfections in the hardware can still lead to quantum errors.
A method of testing quantum error correction codes is self-testing. Self-testing is a powerful tool for verifying quantum properties using only input-output statistics, treating quantum devices as black boxes. It has evolved from bipartite systems consisting of two quantum subsystems, to multipartite entanglement, where entanglement is among three or more subsystems, and now to genuinely entangled subspaces, where every state is fully entangled across all subsystems. Genuinely entangled subspaces offer stronger, guaranteed entanglement than general multipartite states, making them more reliable for quantum computing and error correction.
In this research, self-testing techniques are used to certify genuinely entangled logical subspaces within the five-qubit code on photonic and superconducting platforms. This is achieved by preparing informationally complete logical states that span the entire logical space, meaning the set is rich enough to fully characterize the behaviour of the system. They deliberately introduce basic quantum errors by simulating Pauli errors on the physical qubit, which mimics real-world noise. Finally, they use mathematical tests known as Bell inequalities, adapted to the framework used in quantum error correction, to check whether the system evolves in the initial logical subspaces after the errors are introduced.
Extractability measures tell you how close the tested quantum system is to the ideal target state, with 1 being a perfect match. The certification is supported by extractability measures of at least 0.828 ± 0.006 and 0.621 ± 0.007 for the photonic and superconducting systems, respectively. The photonic platform achieved a high extractability score, meaning the logical subspace was very close to the ideal one. The superconducting platform had a lower score but still showed meaningful entanglement. These scores show that the self-testing method works in practice and confirm strong entanglement in the five-qubit code on both platforms.
This research contributes to the advancement of quantum technologies by providing robust methods for verifying and characterizing complex quantum structures, which is essential for the development of reliable and scalable quantum systems. It also demonstrates that device-independent certification can extend beyond quantum states and measurements to more general quantum structures.
For almost a century, physicists have tried to understand why and how materials become magnetic. From refrigerator magnets to magnetic memories, the microscopic origins of magnetism remain a surprisingly subtle puzzle — especially in materials where electrons behave both like individual particles and like a collective sea.
In most transition-metal compounds, magnetism comes from the dance between localized and mobile electrons. Some electrons stay near their home atoms and form tiny magnetic moments (spins), while others roam freely through the crystal. The interaction between these two types of electrons produces “double-exchange” ferromagnetism — the mechanism that gives rise to the rich magnetic behaviour of materials such as manganites, famous for their colossal magnetoresistance (a dramatic change in electrical resistance under a magnetic field). Traditionally, scientists modelled this behaviour by treating the localized spins as classical arrows — big and well-defined, like compass needles. This approximation works well enough for explaining basic ferromagnetism, but experiments over the last few decades have revealed strange features that defy the classical picture. In particular, neutron scattering studies of manganites showed that the collective spin excitations, called magnons, do not behave as expected. Their energy spectrum “softens” (the waves slow down) and their sharp signals blur into fuzzy continua — a sign that the magnons are losing their coherence. Until now, these effects were usually blamed on vibrations of the atomic lattice (phonons) or on complex interactions between charge, spin, and orbital motion.
Left to right: Adriana Moreo and Elbio Dagotto from University of Tennessee (USA), Takami Tohyama from Tokyo University of Science (Japan), and Marcin Mierzejewski and Jacek Herbrych from Wrocław University of Technology (Courtesy: Herbrych/Wrocław University of Science and Technology)
A new theoretical study challenges that assumption. By going fully quantum mechanical — treating every localized spin not as a classical arrow but as a true quantum object that can fluctuate, entangle, and superpose — the researchers have reproduced these puzzling experimental observations without invoking phonons at all. Using two powerful model systems (a quantum version of the Kondo lattice and a two-orbital Hubbard model), the team simulated how electrons and spins interact when no semiclassical approximations are allowed. The results reveal a subtle quantum landscape. Instead of a single type of electron excitation, the system hosts two. One behaves like a spinless fermion — a charge carrier stripped of its magnetic identity. The other forms a broad, “incoherent” band of excitations arising from local quantum triplets. These incoherent states sit close to the Fermi level and act as a noisy background — a Stoner-like continuum — that the magnons can scatter off. The result: magnons lose their coherence and energy in just the way experiments observe.
Perhaps most surprisingly, this mechanism doesn’t rely on the crystal lattice at all. It’s an intrinsic consequence of the quantum nature of the spins themselves. Larger localized spins, such as those in classical manganites, tend to suppress the effect — explaining why decoherence is weaker in some materials than others. Consequently, the implications reach beyond manganites. Similar quantum interplay may occur in iron-based superconductors, ruthenates, and heavy-fermion systems where magnetism and superconductivity coexist. Even in materials without permanent local moments, strong electronic correlations can generate the same kind of quantum magnetism.
In short, this work uncovers a purely electronic route to complex magnetic dynamics — showing that the quantum personality of the electron alone can mimic effects once thought to require lattice distortions. By uniting electronic structure and spin excitations under a single, fully quantum description, it moves us one step closer to understanding how magnetism truly works in the most intricate materials.
The White House said Nov. 4 it is renominating Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator, the latest twist in an unprecedented saga over the agency’s leadership.
Telesat is preparing to deploy a couple of Lightspeed pathfinders in December 2026, with 96 satellites for an initial global broadband service from LEO set to launch the following year to offset mounting geostationary business declines.
Connexion
