Journal · Science

What science has never measured, and the tools it would take

Nobody discovered bacteria by thinking harder about water. Someone made a better lens. Most of what science is confident exists and has still not measured is waiting for an instrument: more sensitive, bigger, or not yet built.

Highland Willow · Boone, North Carolina · 4 November 2026

New sciences usually begin with a new instrument. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek earned his living as a draper in Delft. In the 1660s he read Robert Hooke's Micrographia, tried making a microscope with a single lens, and became so good at it that he never used anything else. On 9 October 1676 he wrote to the Royal Society in London. Looking through one of his own microscopes, he had found five different kinds of “animalcules” in water steeped with pepper, one of them possibly bacteria. The Society printed part of the letter in its Philosophical Transactions on 25 March 1677, under a title concerning “little animals”. Nobody had a name for bacteria, because nobody had seen one. What changed in 1676 was not a theory. It was a lens.

That order, instrument first and science after, runs through much of the history of discovery, and it is a useful way to read the present. Most of what science is confident exists and has never measured is waiting for an instrument: a more sensitive one, a bigger one, or one nobody has built.

This post is in three parts: the instruments that each opened a new scale of the world; the things that are known, or strongly predicted, and still unmeasured; and the instruments, some funded and some only on paper, that might measure them.

What counts as measured

Measurement has its own science, metrology, which the National Institute of Standards and Technology defines as the science of measurement and its application. NIST's guide to stating uncertainty, Technical Note 1297, says in section 2.1 that a measurement result “is complete only when accompanied by a quantitative statement of its uncertainty.” A number without its error bar is not yet a measurement.

The same guide is generous about how a measurement is made. A quantity need not be sensed directly: in its Appendix A, a value worked out from other measured quantities is still the result of a measurement. By that standard, physics has measured a great deal it has never touched. The cosmic neutrino background, for one, has been detected indirectly, through its effect on the early universe.

This post draws a narrower line, and the line is ours, not NIST's. Here, never measured means that no instrument has yet detected the thing itself or reached it where it is or, for things too big to take in at once, that nobody has measured most of it. An experiment that looked and found nothing has still measured something: it has set a limit on how large the effect can be. Much of the second half of this post is limits.

Each instrument opened a scale

The pattern is easiest to see laid out in a row. Each line below is an instrument that let people sense something no one had sensed before, and something it showed them.

Several of these did more than answer a question. They started fields that had not existed before: microbiology, X-ray crystallography, particle physics, gravitational-wave astronomy. The Scale Zoom runs the whole ladder, from the edge of the observable universe down to the Planck length, if you want to see where each instrument sits on it. Three stories show the mechanism better than the table can.

Helium was seen in the Sun 27 years before anyone held it

During the total solar eclipse of 18 August 1868, watching from India, the French astronomer Pierre Janssen saw a yellow line in the spectrum of the Sun's light. On 20 October 1868 Norman Lockyer, looking at the same rogue line through his own spectroscope, concluded it came from an element nobody had found. It was named helium, after Helios, the Greek sun. Not until 1895 was the gas isolated on Earth, by William Ramsay; Per Teodor Cleve and Nils Abraham Langlet in Uppsala confirmed it independently and measured its atomic weight. For 27 years an element was known only through an instrument. The same instrument could mislead: another solar line was credited in 1869 to a new element called coronium, and in 1939 it turned out to be iron.

The microwave sky was found by an antenna built for telephone satellites

In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, at Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey, turned a receiver built for radio communication with the Echo and Telstar satellites to the sky. It picked up faint microwave radiation that, after painstaking tests, came from outer space and was the same in every direction. It was the cosmic microwave background, the light left over from the early universe. Theorists had predicted it years before, but the Nobel announcement says those predictions had been forgotten, because it was assumed that radiation that weak could never be detected. The work earned Penzias and Wilson half of the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

LIGO measures changes far smaller than a proton

On 14 September 2015 the two LIGO detectors in Louisiana and Washington recorded the gravitational waves from two black holes merging. The peak strain, the fractional stretching of space, was 1.0×10⁻²¹. LIGO describes its detectors, at their most sensitive, as able to sense a change in the distance between their mirrors of one ten-thousandth of the width of a proton. LIGO announced the detection on 11 February 2016, a hundred years after Einstein predicted the waves.

One more pattern is worth noticing, because it recurs later. The first version of a new instrument is often worse than the old one at the old job. Ernst Ruska's first prototype electron microscope, two magnetic coils in series, magnified fifteen times, which the Nobel announcement called a modest result. The ammonia clock that the National Bureau of Standards, NIST's predecessor, first ran on 12 August 1948 was, in NIST's own history, no more accurate than the clocks it was meant to replace. Both were worth building anyway, because of where they led.

The gap between predicting a thing and detecting it

Sometimes theory gets there first. Then the time between the prediction and the first direct detection is, roughly, the time it takes to build the instrument. The chart shows eight examples. Filled bars are things that have been detected. Dashed bars are still waiting.

Neptune took no time at all. Urbain Le Verrier calculated where an unseen planet should be, and Johann Galle found it on 23 September 1846, because the telescope it needed already existed. Gravitational waves took 99 years to detect directly, because the instrument had to sense a stretch of space of one part in 10²¹. The neutrino, proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in a letter of 4 December 1930, waited 26 years for a detector. The Higgs boson waited 48 years for the Large Hadron Collider.

Three bars are still open, and all three are predictions that may turn out to be wrong. That is a different situation from a thing everyone agrees is there and nobody has measured. The next section separates the two.

Known to exist, and not yet measured

These are things whose existence is not seriously in doubt and which, by this post's line, nobody has measured. Some have only been detected indirectly, or only from a distance. Others are too large for anyone to have measured most of them.

The first two are physics. The last four are closer to home, and they are a useful correction to the idea that the unmeasured is all at the edge of the universe. Most of the ocean floor, most of the species on Earth and almost all of a human brain's wiring have never been measured. For those three the reason is the same: the instrument exists at the scale of one ship, one expedition or one cubic millimetre, and nobody has built it at the scale of the whole. The mantle is different. It has been measured from a distance, by earthquake waves and, more faintly, by neutrinos, but no drill reaches it.

Predicted, and not yet seen

This second list is different in kind. These are predictions of theories that might be wrong, about the thing or about its size. A long run of limits here is not just a failure to build a good enough instrument. It might be the answer.

There is a third category, smaller and more uncomfortable: a measurement that may not be one. In 2018 the EDGES experiment reported a signal from the first stars switching on, an absorption dip in radio noise from the early universe. In 2022 the SARAS 3 experiment looked for the same dip and rejected it with 95.3% confidence. No other instrument has detected it, so the real signal, whatever its size, is still unmeasured.

Measured, and the measurements disagree

NIST's rule about uncertainty earns its keep here. Every result below carries an error bar, and that is the only reason anyone knows the results disagree. Without error bars, two numbers that differ are just two numbers. With them, the gap is a finding: either one method has an error nobody has found, or nature is doing something neither method assumed.

How long a free neutron lasts. Neutrons outside an atom decay in about a quarter of an hour, and there are two ways to time them. Count the protons that come out of a beam of neutrons, which is the method NIST uses, or trap ultracold neutrons in a bottle and count how many are left. NIST's own beam result, published in 2013, was 887.7 ± 2.2 seconds. In January 2026 CERN Courier put the averages at 888.1 ± 2.0 seconds for beams and 877.8 ± 0.3 seconds for bottles, a gap of about ten seconds that it describes as roughly five standard deviations. NIST's project page acknowledges the difference and describes a new beam measurement designed to understand it. A newer beam experiment in Japan, counting electrons instead of protons, reported a result in a 2024 preprint that agrees with the bottles. That narrows the suspicion without settling it.

The strength of gravity. The Newtonian constant of gravitation, G, is the least well known of the major fundamental constants. Its accepted value carries a relative uncertainty of 2.2 parts in 100,000, and that already includes an expansion of the experiments' uncertainties by a factor of 3.9, because the experiments disagree with one another more than their own error bars allow. In April 2026 NIST published a measurement made on the same apparatus as an earlier result from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, and got an answer that, in the paper's own word, is inconsistent with it. Same instrument, different answer.

How fast the universe is expanding. Measured from nearby stars and supernovae, the Hubble constant comes out at 73.04 ± 1.04 kilometres per second per megaparsec (SH0ES, 2022). Inferred from the microwave background and a model of the universe, it comes out at 67.4 ± 0.5 (Planck, 2018). A 2026 consensus of the nearby measurements, 73.50 ± 0.81, puts the gap with the combined microwave-background value from the Planck, SPT and ACT telescopes at 7.1 standard deviations, and reports that removing either of its two main kinds of star, Cepheids or red giants, changes the answer little. One team, using the red-giant method alone with Hubble and Webb data, reported about 70 in 2024.

In each case the way forward is another instrument with different weaknesses, so that its errors cannot be the same as the others'. The electron-counting beam in Japan is one.

Instruments being built, or still on paper

Some of the missing instruments have names, budgets and launch dates. The table gives each one's status as published by the people building or funding it, read on 4 November 2026.

Three stories from this frontier are worth a closer look. The first two show a timekeeping instrument becoming something more. The third shows how hard the hardest measurement is.

A clock that can feel a millimetre

In February 2022 physicists at JILA, run jointly by NIST and the University of Colorado, compared the rate of time in two parts of one cloud of strontium atoms separated by about a millimetre, the width of a sharp pencil tip. Einstein's theory says time passes slightly faster further from the Earth, and the clock saw it: a difference of about one part in 10¹⁹. NIST had measured the same effect in 2010 between two clocks 33 centimetres apart; the 2022 result shrank the distance to a millimetre. At that precision a clock is also a gravity sensor, and NIST names the field: relativistic geodesy. NIST says today's best clocks can detect height differences of less than a centimetre, and its page on the subject describes a proposal by Derek van Westrum of NOAA's National Geodetic Survey for a global network of clock-based gravity sensors, one every 10 to 100 kilometres, watching for underground water, lava flows and shifts in tectonic plates. The US-German GRACE-FO satellites already track underground water, and Japan's network of more than 1,300 positioning stations watches the crust move; what clocks would add is a direct reading of the geopotential, which, as NIST's page puts it, predicts where water will go.

A clock in the nucleus

Atomic clocks keep time by a transition in an atom's electrons. The nucleus of thorium-229 has a transition low enough in energy for a laser to drive. Ekkehard Peik and Christian Tamm proposed a clock on it in 2003 for its accuracy, because the transition is barely disturbed by outside fields. In 2006 Victor Flambaum pointed out that it should also be unusually sensitive to any change in the constants of nature. In September 2024 the same JILA group measured its frequency against a strontium clock, a million times more precisely than the previous measurement. NIST was careful to say this is not yet a working nuclear clock. What one could do, in NIST's words, is help detect dark matter or verify if the constants of nature are truly constant. NIST's explainer adds signals of new forces that no existing instrument can detect, and says a nuclear clock that beats today's best optical clocks remains years away.

Is gravity quantum?

In 2021 Tobias Westphal and colleagues measured the gravitational pull between two gold spheres of about 90 milligrams each, roughly a millimetre in radius. In 2017 two papers, by Sougato Bose and colleagues and by Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral, proposed the test that would follow: put two small masses into quantum superpositions and see whether gravity alone entangles them. If it does, they argued, gravity must be quantum, which is the question the graviton belongs to. Nobody has done it. That is the difficulty: the masses must be heavy enough to pull on each other measurably and light enough to hold a quantum state, and no experiment yet does both. The test has also become less clean on paper: in October 2025 a paper in Nature argued that some classical theories of gravity could produce entanglement too, and rebuttals followed within weeks. This is what the frontier usually looks like. The instrument and the interpretation are both unfinished.

Instruments nobody has built

The table above is the part with budgets. Further out are instruments that exist only as proposals, designs on paper or ideas. Where someone has proposed one, we name them. Where we go past what anyone has proposed, we say so, and that part is speculation.

A census of one cell

Mass spectrometry can now identify proteins in single cells: one 2021 method quantified more than 3,000 proteins across 1,490 single cells, and a 2025 method identified more than 5,000 in individual cells of a human cell line. Reading single protein molecules one at a time is newer: in 2024 a team showed nanopores reading long stretches of single protein strands, and a 2025 perspective in Nature Biotechnology judged it more likely than not that nanopores will identify full-length proteins at the resolution of single amino acids. Researchers in the field already look toward profiling single cells this way and toward counting rare proteins. Our speculation goes one step further: a count of every protein molecule in one cell, by type, the way a sequencer reads every letter of a genome. We know of no method that claims to do that today.

A reader for a whole human brain

The H01 sample, one cubic millimetre of human cortex mapped by electron microscope in 2021 and published in 2024, holds about 57,000 cells and 150 million synapses in 1.4 petabytes of images. Google's researchers estimate that mapping a whole human brain the same way would take as much as a zettabyte of data, a billion terabytes, which they say is beyond the capabilities of existing technology. Our guess, and it is a guess, is that the instrument this needs is less a microscope than a factory, and that its hardest part is the computing that reads the images rather than the imaging itself.

A telescope that looks down

No borehole has reached Earth's mantle where it lies. The Kola Superdeep Borehole stopped at 12,262 metres. A 1,268-metre core of mantle rock drilled at the Atlantis Massif in the Atlantic, published in 2024, came from mantle exposed on the seafloor and altered by seawater. Neutrinos are the other way in. Some come from radioactive decay inside the Earth, and the Borexino detector reported hints of a signal from the mantle itself in 2015 and again in 2019. Others pass through the whole planet and are absorbed more in denser rock: in 2018 three physicists used a year of public data from the IceCube detector at the South Pole to show this way that the core is denser than the mantle. Purpose-built instruments have been designed. A 1983 paper proposed using neutrinos from a large accelerator for geological research, and a 2008 design called Hanohano would put a detector in the deep ocean to measure neutrinos from the mantle. Neither has been built. Reading the interior from how neutrinos are absorbed is those authors' idea; the 2018 paper calls it tomography. What we add, as speculation, is the ambition: a detector good enough for a full three-dimensional picture of the interior, the way a medical scanner images a body.

A telescope for the cosmic neutrino background

The cosmic microwave background is the oldest light anyone can see. The cosmic neutrino background is older: the Particle Data Group's review puts the moment neutrinos stopped interacting with everything else at temperatures around 2 MeV, about 23 billion degrees by our conversion. Those neutrinos are still everywhere, about 340 in every cubic centimetre, and so cold and so weakly interacting that nothing has ever caught one directly. PTOLEMY aims at the first detector for them and is now prototyping parts of it, still planning to use tritium bound to graphene. A 2021 analysis argued that tritium, the most popular target for such a detector, fails a basic quantum criterion; in 2022 the collaboration, writing with the same authors, proposed ways to mitigate the problem. A working detector would show the universe as it was before the oldest light we can see.

What a business-systems firm takes from this

We build and run business systems, so we will make one narrow point and stop. Most businesses have their own list of things everyone knows exist and nobody has measured, and many of them are waits. Everyone knows an order sits for a while between being paid for and being picked. Everyone knows a quote request waits before someone answers it. Few businesses know how long, because the moment a record changes from one state to the next is often not recorded, or is recorded and never read.

The instrument that measures a wait is cheap: a timestamp written when a record changes status, which many business systems can already keep. Like the first electron microscope, expect its first readings to disappoint: some will be noisy, some plainly wrong, and most will confirm what people already suspected. What it opens is the next set of questions, the ones that were matters of opinion before: which step the wait lives in, whether it grows on Mondays, whether it moved after you changed something. Where an Order Spends Its Time draws one invented order at a pixel a minute, to show how much of its life is waiting.

NIST's rule carries over as well. “Orders ship in two days” is a number. “Orders have averaged two days over the last three months, and that average is good to within about half a day” is a measurement, because it says how far to trust the two. How widely single orders vary around the average is a separate fact, and worth knowing too. Those figures are invented for the example.

What this does not establish

The chart's rows were chosen to illustrate, not sampled. It shows that the gap between predicting a thing and detecting it varies from nothing to a century. It does not show how long a typical gap is, and an honest sample would also include predictions that were never measured because there was nothing there to measure.

“Instrument first” is a pattern, not a law. Neptune and the Higgs boson were worked out on paper before anyone looked for them. The claim here is narrower: detecting a thing takes an instrument that can sense it, and for most of the unmeasured items above, an instrument with enough sensitivity or enough reach is what is missing.

The line between detected and inferred is this post's, not NIST's. NIST's guide counts a value worked out from other measurements as a measurement, and by that standard several things listed here as unmeasured, the cosmic neutrino background and the mantle among them, have been measured indirectly.

Statuses and schedules in the table of future instruments are as published by the people building or funding each one, read on 4 November 2026. Large instruments slip, and some are cancelled. We are not forecasting which of them will find anything. Several may return only limits, which are still measurements.

In the section on instruments nobody has built, the proposals and designs we name are other people's; where the text goes past them, it says so, and that part is our speculation.

This is a business firm's journal, not a physics review. We read the sources listed below, mostly the institutions' own announcements and the papers' abstracts, not the full literature behind each line.

Questions people ask

What is metrology?

Metrology is the science of measurement and its application, in NIST's own definition. It covers how units are defined, how instruments are calibrated against them, and how the uncertainty of a result is worked out and stated.

What has science never measured?

It depends on what counts. NIST's guidance counts a quantity worked out from other measurements as measured. This post uses a stricter line: things nobody has detected directly, reached where they are, or measured for the most part. Among things science is confident exist: the cosmic neutrino background, the absolute masses of neutrinos, Earth's mantle sampled where it lies, most of the ocean floor, most species on Earth and the wiring of a human brain. Among things predicted but never seen: the graviton, dark matter as a particle, Hawking radiation from a black hole, proton decay and the gravitational waves expected from cosmic inflation.

Has anyone ever detected a graviton?

No. Freeman Dyson argued in 2013 that a detector like LIGO could never register a single graviton, and left open whether any other kind of detector could. In 2023 Daniel Carney and colleagues argued that some detectors could register one, but that the same signal could also be explained by a classical gravitational wave. In 2024 Germain Tobar and colleagues proposed a way to detect single gravitons with quantum sensing, as a possible first experimental clue that gravity is quantised. These are proposals, not detections.

Who first saw bacteria?

The usual answer is Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. His letter to the Royal Society dated 9 October 1676 describes five different kinds of tiny living things in water steeped with pepper, and the Royal Society's catalogue says one of them was possibly bacteria. Part of the letter was printed in 1677.

Why does a measurement need an uncertainty?

Because without one nobody can tell whether two results agree. NIST's Technical Note 1297 says a measurement result is complete only when accompanied by a quantitative statement of its uncertainty. The two ways of timing a free neutron differ by about ten seconds, and it is only their stated uncertainties that show the gap is real.

What is a nuclear clock?

A clock that keeps time by a transition in an atom's nucleus instead of its electrons. The nucleus of thorium-229 has one that a laser can drive, and in 2024 JILA measured it against a strontium atomic clock. NIST says this is not yet a working clock. It was proposed in 2003 for its accuracy. Since 2006 physicists have also expected it to be unusually sensitive to changes in the constants of nature, which is why NIST says one could help detect dark matter or test whether those constants are truly constant.

Sources

1. NIST. Taylor BN and Kuyatt CE, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, Technical Note 1297, 1994 edition, section 2.1 and Appendix A. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1297
2. NIST. Metrology. https://www.nist.gov/metrology
3. NIST. A Brief History of Atomic Time. https://www.nist.gov/atomic-clocks/brief-history-atomic-time
4. NIST. JILA atomic clocks measure Einstein's general relativity at millimeter scale, 16 February 2022. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
5. NIST. Mapping Earth. https://www.nist.gov/atomic-clocks/a-powerful-tool-for-science/mapping-earth
6. NIST. Major leap for nuclear clock paves way for ultraprecise timekeeping, 4 September 2024. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/09/major-leap-nuclear-clock-paves-way-ultraprecise-timekeeping
7. Peik E, Tamm C. Nuclear laser spectroscopy of the 3.5 eV transition in Th-229. Europhysics Letters 61, 181 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2003-00210-x
8. Flambaum VV. Enhanced effect of temporal variation of the fine structure constant and the strong interaction in 229Th. Physical Review Letters 97, 092502 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.092502
9. NIST. Nuclear clocks: a clock to rule them all. https://www.nist.gov/atomic-clocks/nuclear-clocks-clock-rule-them-all
10. NIST. Neutron lifetime measurement using a cold neutron beam. https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/fundamental-physics-neutron-lifetime-measurement-using-cold-neutron-beam
11. NIST. CODATA 2022 value of the Newtonian constant of gravitation. https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg
12. Redetermination of the gravitational constant with the BIPM torsion balance at NIST. Metrologia 63, 025012 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/ae570f
13. Mohr PJ et al. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2022. Section on G. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03787
14. The Royal Society Archives. Letter from Antoni van Leeuwenhoek to Henry Oldenburg, dated at Delft, 9 October 1676, EL/L1/22. https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/el_l1_22/letter-from-antoni-van-leeuwenhoek-to-henry-oldenburg-dated-at-delft
15. Linda Hall Library. Scientist of the day: Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, 24 October 2016. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/antoni-van-leeuwenhoek/
16. The Royal Society. Restoration reading, on Hooke's Micrographia. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2013/04/restoration-reading/
17. Museo Galileo. The great celestial discoveries, 1609 to 1613. https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/pencil/eng/html/Time/04%20Scoperte.htm
18. Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic table: caesium. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/55/caesium
19. Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic table: rubidium. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/37/Rubidium
20. Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic table: helium. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/2/helium
21. Science Museum. 150 years since the discovery of helium. https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/150-years-since-the-discovery-of-helium/
22. Nobel Prize facts pages: Max von Laue, 1914. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1914/laue/facts/
23. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1915. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1915/summary/
24. Nobel Prize facts pages: C. T. R. Wilson, 1927. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1927/wilson/facts/
25. Nobel Prize facts pages: Carl D. Anderson, 1936. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1936/anderson/facts/
26. Ernst Ruska, Nobel biography. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1986/ruska/biographical/
27. Press release, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1986. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1986/press-release/
28. Neher E, Sakmann B. Single-channel currents recorded from membrane of denervated frog muscle fibres. Nature 260, 799 (1976). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1083489/
29. Nobel Prize facts pages: Gerd Binnig, 1986. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1986/binnig/facts/
30. Press release, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1991. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1991/press-release/
31. Press release, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1978. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1978/press-release/
32. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. 13th CGPM, 1967, Resolution 1, the SI second. https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/13-1967/resolution-1
33. LIGO Caltech. Facts. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
34. LIGO Caltech. Gravitational waves detected 100 years after Einstein's prediction, 11 February 2016. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
35. Abbott BP et al. Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26918975/
36. ESO. Astronomers capture first image of a black hole, 10 April 2019. https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1907/
37. White JG et al. The structure of the nervous system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 314, 1 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1986.0056
38. Winding M et al. The connectome of an insect brain. Science (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36893230/
39. Dorkenwald S et al. Neuronal wiring diagram of an adult brain. Nature 634, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07558-y
40. Shapson-Coe A et al. A petavoxel fragment of human cerebral cortex reconstructed at nanoscale resolution. Science 384, eadk4858 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38723085/
41. Google Research. Google Research embarks on effort to map a mouse brain, 2023. https://research.google/blog/google-research-embarks-on-effort-to-map-a-mouse-brain/
42. NASA. Neptune facts. https://science.nasa.gov/neptune/facts/
43. CERN Archives. Pauli's letter of 4 December 1930. https://archives.web.cern.ch/?p=542
44. Cowan CL, Reines F et al. Detection of the free neutrino: a confirmation. Science 124, 103 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.124.3212.103
45. Alpher RA, Herman R. Evolution of the universe. Nature 162, 774 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1038/162774b0
46. Penzias AA, Wilson RW. A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s. Astrophysical Journal 142, 419 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1086/148307
47. Englert F, Brout R. Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons. Physical Review Letters 13, 321 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321
48. CERN. CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson, 4 July 2012. https://home.cern/cern-experiments-observe-particle-consistent-with-long-sought-higgs-boson/
49. Rovelli C. Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity, section 4, on the name graviton. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0006061
50. Press release, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1993, on the binary pulsar, including the 1978 first report. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1993/press-release/
51. Sakharov AD. Violation of CP invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe. JETP Letters 5, 24 (1967); English reprint, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 34, 392 (1991). https://ufn.ru/en/articles/1991/5/h/
52. Pati JC, Salam A. Is baryon number conserved? Physical Review Letters 31, 661 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.31.661
53. Georgi H, Glashow SL. Unity of all elementary-particle forces. Physical Review Letters 32, 438 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438
54. Hawking SW. Black hole explosions? Nature 248, 30 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1038/248030a0
55. Particle Data Group. Proton listing, Review of Particle Physics 2024: mean life and partial mean lives. https://pdg.lbl.gov/2024/listings/rpp2024-list-p.pdf
56. Particle Data Group. Neutrinos in cosmology, Review of Particle Physics, revised August 2025. https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-neutrinos-in-cosmology.pdf
57. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results VI: cosmological parameters. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209
58. Betti MG et al. Neutrino physics with the PTOLEMY project (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05508
59. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015, for the discovery of neutrino oscillations. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2015/summary/
60. KATRIN Collaboration. Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data. Science 388, 180 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq9592
61. LZ Collaboration. Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17036
62. LZ Collaboration. Search for dark matter particle interactions in an extended nuclear recoil energy window with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, September 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02823
63. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations. Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23991
64. Lissenberg CJ et al. A long section of serpentinized depleted mantle peridotite. Science 385, 623 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp1058
65. Skuf'in PK. Anniversary of the commencement of the SG-3 Kola superdeep borehole drilling operations. Nexo Revista Científica 34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5377/nexo.v34i04.12693
66. Seabed 2030. Press release, 20 April 2026. https://seabed2030.org/?p=3108
67. Mora C et al. How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology 9, e1001127 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
68. Dyson F. Is a graviton detectable? Talk abstract, 2012; paper in International Journal of Modern Physics A 28, 1330041 (2013). https://icmp12.aau.dk/media/15234/abstract-dyson.pdf
69. Tobar G et al. Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. Nature Communications 15, 7229 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51420-8
70. Carney D, Domcke V, Rodd NL. Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12988
71. Steinhauer J. Observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole (2016). https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00621
72. Muñoz de Nova JR et al. Observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its temperature in an analogue black hole. Nature 569, 688 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1241-0
73. Super-Kamiokande Collaboration. Search for proton decay via p to e+ pi0 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.16098
74. KamLAND-Zen Collaboration. Search for Majorana neutrinos with the complete KamLAND-Zen dataset (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11438
75. BICEP/Keck Collaboration. Improved constraints on primordial gravitational waves (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00483
76. CMB-S4. DOE and NSF statement, 9 July 2025. https://cmb-s4.org/
77. Bowman JD et al. An absorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum (EDGES, 2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05912
78. Singh S et al. On the detection of a cosmic dawn signal in the radio background (SARAS 3, 2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.06778
79. CERN Courier. The beam-bottle debate at PSI, 14 January 2026. https://cerncourier.com/a/the-beam-bottle-debate-at-psi/
80. Fuwa Y et al. Improved measurements of neutron lifetime with cold neutron beam at J-PARC, preprint, December 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19519
81. Riess AG et al. A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04510
82. H0DN Collaboration. The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision. Astronomy and Astrophysics 708, A166 (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23823
83. Freedman WL et al. Status report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153
84. ESA. Capturing the ripples of spacetime: LISA gets go-ahead, 25 January 2024. https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/LISA/Capturing_the_ripples_of_spacetime_LISA_gets_go-ahead
85. ESA. Construction of ESA's ambitious LISA mission begins, June 2025. https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/LISA/Construction_of_ESA_s_ambitious_LISA_mission_begins
86. LISA Definition Study Report (2024), for the frequency band. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07571
87. Einstein Telescope. Preparing the groundwork for site selection, August 2026. https://einsteintelescope.eu/news/preparing-the-groundwork-for-site-selection/
88. Cosmic Explorer. https://cosmicexplorer.org/
89. University of Arizona. NSF grant for Cosmic Explorer site selection, 27 August 2026. https://gis.arizona.edu/news/chris-lukinbeal-awarded-655k-nsf-grant-siting-next-gen-observatory-site-selection
90. NASA. Habitable Worlds Observatory. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/habitable-worlds-observatory/
91. Firefly Aerospace. Blue Ghost Mission 2, carrying LuSEE-Night. https://fireflyspace.com/blue-ghost-mission-2
92. University of Tokyo. Hyper-Kamiokande press release, 5 August 2025. https://www.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/prwps/wp-content/uploads/HKpressrelease_v1.9_2.pdf
93. Fermilab. Momentum builds for world-leading neutrino experiment, October 2026. https://news.fnal.gov/2026/10/momentum-builds-for-world-leading-neutrino-experiment-hosted-by-fermilab/
94. Project 8 Collaboration. The Project 8 neutrino mass experiment (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.07349
95. Project 8 Collaboration. Tritium beta spectrum and neutrino mass limit from cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy. Physical Review Letters 131, 102502 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05048
96. Abe M et al. Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100) (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.02835
97. Fermilab. Laser lab complete for MAGIS-100, January 2026. https://news.fnal.gov/2026/01/fermilab-completes-laser-lab-construction-for-worlds-largest-vertical-atom-interferometer/
98. NIH. BRAIN Initiative CONNECTS, RFA-NS-22-048. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-NS-22-048.html
99. Westphal T et al. Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses. Nature 591, 225 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09546
100. Bose S et al. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Physical Review Letters 119, 240401 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240401
101. Marletto C, Vedral V. Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity. Physical Review Letters 119, 240402 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240402
102. Aziz J, Howl R. Classical theories of gravity produce entanglement. Nature 646, 813 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09595-7
103. Marletto C, Vedral V. Classical gravity cannot mediate entanglement by local means (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19969
104. Marletto C, Oppenheim J, Vedral V, Wilson E. Classical gravity cannot mediate entanglement (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07348
105. Single-cell proteomic and transcriptomic analysis of macrophage heterogeneity using SCoPE2. Genome Biology (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02267-5
106. Enhanced sensitivity and scalability with a Chip-Tip workflow enables deep single-cell proteomics. Nature Methods (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02558-2
107. Alfaro JA et al. The emerging landscape of single-molecule protein sequencing technologies. Nature Methods 18, 604 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01143-1
108. Lu C, Bonini A, Viel JH, Maglia G. Toward single-molecule protein sequencing using nanopores. Nature Biotechnology 43, 312 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02587-y
109. Motone K et al. Multi-pass, single-molecule nanopore reading of long protein strands. Nature 633, 662 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07935-7
110. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. GRACE-FO. https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/
111. Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. GEONET. https://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/geonet_english.html
112. Borexino Collaboration. Comprehensive geoneutrino analysis with Borexino (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02257
113. De Rújula A, Glashow SL, Wilson RR, Charpak G. Neutrino exploration of the Earth. Physics Reports 99, 341 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(83)90108-4
114. Learned JG, Dye ST, Pakvasa S. Hanohano: a deep ocean anti-neutrino detector for unique neutrino physics and geophysics studies (2008). https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4975
115. Cheipesh Y, Cheianov V, Boyarsky A. Navigating the pitfalls of relic neutrino detection (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10069
116. PTOLEMY Collaboration with Cheipesh, Cheianov and Boyarsky. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in the PTOLEMY project: a theory update (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11228
117. PTOLEMY Collaboration. Ultra-high precision high voltage system for PTOLEMY (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19437
118. Borexino Collaboration. Spectroscopy of geo-neutrinos from 2056 days of Borexino data (2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04610
119. Donini A, Palomares-Ruiz S, Salvado J. Neutrino tomography of Earth. Nature Physics 15, 37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0319-1