Which creative studio do you most admire right now, and why? This is a question we asked our community via an ongoing survey. With more than 700 responses so far, these are the top winners. What's striking about this year's results is the popularity of studios that aren't just producing beautiful work but are also actively shaping discussions and tackling the big challenges facing our industry and society. From the vibrant energy of Brazilian culture to the thoughtful minimalism of North European aesthetics, this list reflects a global creative landscape that's more connected, more conscious, and more collaborative than ever before. In short, these studios aren't just following trends; they're setting them. Read on to discover the 25 studios our community is most excited about right now. 1. Porto Rocha Porto Rocha is a New York-based agency that unites strategy and design to create work that evolves with the world we live in. It continues to dominate conversations in 2025, and it's easy to see why. Founders Felipe Rocha and Leo Porto have built something truly special—a studio that not only creates visually stunning work but also actively celebrates and amplifies diverse voices in design. For instance, their recent bold new identity for the São Paulo art museum MASP nods to Brazilian modernist design traditions while reimagining them for a contemporary audience. The rebrand draws heavily on the museum's iconic modernist architecture by Lina Bo Bardi, using a red-and-black colour palette and strong typography to reflect the building's striking visual presence. As we write this article, Porto Rocha just shared a new partnership with Google to reimagine the visual and verbal identity of its revolutionary Gemini AI model. We can't wait to see what they come up with! 2. DixonBaxi Simon Dixon and Aporva Baxi's London powerhouse specialises in creating brand strategies and design systems for "brave businesses" that want to challenge convention, including Hulu, Audible, and the Premier League. The studio had an exceptional start to 2025 by collaborating with Roblox on a brand new design system. At the heart of this major project is the Tilt: a 15-degree shift embedded in the logo that signals momentum, creativity, and anticipation. They've also continued to build their reputation as design thought leaders. At the OFFF Festival 2025, for instance, Simon and Aporva delivered a masterclass on running a successful brand design agency. Their core message centred on the importance of people and designing with intention, even in the face of global challenges. They also highlighted "Super Futures," their program that encourages employees to think freely and positively about brand challenges and audience desires, aiming to reclaim creative liberation. And if that wasn't enough, DixonBaxi has just launched its brand new website, one that's designed to be open in nature. As Simon explains: "It's not a shop window. It's a space to share the thinking and ethos that drive us. You'll find our work, but more importantly, what shapes it. No guff. Just us." 3. Mother Mother is a renowned independent creative agency founded in London and now boasts offices in New York and Los Angeles as well. They've spent 2025 continuing to push the boundaries of what advertising can achieve. And they've made an especially big splash with their latest instalment of KFC's 'Believe' campaign, featuring a surreal and humorous take on KFC's gravy. As we wrote at the time: "Its balance between theatrical grandeur and self-awareness makes the campaign uniquely engaging." 4. Studio Dumbar/DEPT® Based in Rotterdam, Studio Dumbar/DEPT® is widely recognised for its influential work in visual branding and identity, often incorporating creative coding and sound, for clients such as the Dutch Railways, Instagram, and the Van Gogh Museum. In 2025, we've especially admired their work for the Dutch football club Feyenoord, which brings the team under a single, cohesive vision that reflects its energy and prowess. This groundbreaking rebrand, unveiled at the start of May, moves away from nostalgia, instead emphasising the club's "measured ferocity, confidence, and ambition". 5. HONDO Based between Palma de Mallorca, Spain and London, HONDO specialises in branding, editorial, typography and product design. We're particular fans of their rebranding of metal furniture makers Castil, based around clean and versatile designs that highlight Castil's vibrant and customisable products. This new system features a bespoke monospaced typeface and logo design that evokes Castil's adaptability and the precision of its craftsmanship. 6. Smith & Diction Smith & Diction is a small but mighty design and copy studio founded by Mike and Chara Smith in Philadelphia. Born from dreams, late-night chats, and plenty of mistakes, the studio has grown into a creative force known for thoughtful, boundary-pushing branding. Starting out with Mike designing in a tiny apartment while Chara held down a day job, the pair learned the ropes the hard way—and now they're thriving. Recent highlights include their work with Gamma, an AI platform that lets you quickly get ideas out of your head and into a presentation deck or onto a website. Gamma wanted their brand update to feel "VERY fun and a little bit out there" with an AI-first approach. So Smith & Diction worked hard to "put weird to the test" while still developing responsible systems for logo, type and colour. The results, as ever, were exceptional. 7. DNCO DNCO is a London and New York-based creative studio specialising in place branding. They are best known for shaping identities, digital tools, and wayfinding for museums, cultural institutions, and entire neighbourhoods, with clients including the Design Museum, V&A and Transport for London. Recently, DNCO has been making headlines again with its ambitious brand refresh for Dumbo, a New York neighbourhood struggling with misperceptions due to mass tourism. The goal was to highlight Dumbo's unconventional spirit and demonstrate it as "a different side of New York." DNCO preserved the original diagonal logo and introduced a flexible "tape graphic" system, inspired by the neighbourhood's history of inventing the cardboard box, to reflect its ingenuity and reveal new perspectives. The colour palette and typography were chosen to embody Dumbo's industrial and gritty character. 8. Hey Studio Founded by Verònica Fuerte in Barcelona, Spain, Hey Studio is a small, all-female design agency celebrated for its striking use of geometry, bold colour, and playful yet refined visual language. With a focus on branding, illustration, editorial design, and typography, they combine joy with craft to explore issues with heart and purpose. A great example of their impact is their recent branding for Rainbow Wool. This German initiative is transforming wool from gay rams into fashion products to support the LGBT community. As is typical for Hey Studio, the project's identity is vibrant and joyful, utilising bright, curved shapes that will put a smile on everyone's face. 9. Koto Koto is a London-based global branding and digital studio known for co-creation, strategic thinking, expressive design systems, and enduring partnerships. They're well-known in the industry for bringing warmth, optimism and clarity to complex brand challenges. Over the past 18 months, they've undertaken a significant project to refresh Amazon's global brand identity. This extensive undertaking has involved redesigning Amazon's master brand and over 50 of its sub-brands across 15 global markets. Koto's approach, described as "radical coherence", aims to refine and modernize Amazon's most recognizable elements rather than drastically changing them. You can read more about the project here. 10. Robot Food Robot Food is a Leeds-based, brand-first creative studio recognised for its strategic and holistic approach. They're past masters at melding creative ideas with commercial rigour across packaging, brand strategy and campaign design. Recent Robot Food projects have included a bold rebrand for Hip Pop, a soft drinks company specializing in kombucha and alternative sodas. Their goal was to elevate Hip Pop from an indie challenger to a mainstream category leader, moving away from typical health drink aesthetics. The results are visually striking, with black backgrounds prominently featured (a rarity in the health drink aisle), punctuated by vibrant fruit illustrations and flavour-coded colours. Read more about the project here. 11. Saffron Brand Consultants Saffron is an independent global consultancy with offices in London, Madrid, Vienna and Istanbul. With deep expertise in naming, strategy, identity, and design systems, they work with leading public and private-sector clients to develop confident, culturally intelligent brands. One 2025 highlight so far has been their work for Saudi National Bank (SNB) to create NEO, a groundbreaking digital lifestyle bank in Saudi Arabia. Saffron integrated cultural and design trends, including Saudi neo-futurism, for its sonic identity to create a product that supports both individual and community connections. The design system strikes a balance between modern Saudi aesthetics and the practical demands of a fast-paced digital product, ensuring a consistent brand reflection across all interactions. 12. Alright Studio Alright Studio is a full-service strategy, creative, production and technology agency based in Brooklyn, New York. It prides itself on a "no house style" approach for clients, including A24, Meta Platforms, and Post Malone. One of the most exciting of their recent projects has been Offball, a digital-first sports news platform that aims to provide more nuanced, positive sports storytelling. Alright Studio designed a clean, intuitive, editorial-style platform featuring a masthead-like logotype and universal sports iconography, creating a calmer user experience aligned with OffBall's positive content. 13. Wolff Olins Wolff Olins is a global brand consultancy with four main offices: London, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Known for their courageous, culturally relevant branding and forward-thinking strategy, they collaborate with large corporations and trailblazing organisations to create bold, authentic brand identities that resonate emotionally. A particular highlight of 2025 so far has been their collaboration with Leo Burnett to refresh Sandals Resorts' global brand with the "Made of Caribbean" campaign. This strategic move positions Sandals not merely as a luxury resort but as a cultural ambassador for the Caribbean. Wolff Olins developed a new visual identity called "Natural Vibrancy," integrating local influences with modern design to reflect a genuine connection to the islands' culture. This rebrand speaks to a growing traveller demand for authenticity and meaningful experiences, allowing Sandals to define itself as an extension of the Caribbean itself. 14. COLLINS Founded by Brian Collins, COLLINS is an independent branding and design consultancy based in the US, celebrated for its playful visual language, expressive storytelling and culturally rich identity systems. In the last few months, we've loved the new branding they designed for Barcelona's 25th Offf Festival, which departs from its usual consistent wordmark. The updated identity is inspired by the festival's role within the international creative community, and is rooted in the concept of 'Centre Offf Gravity'. This concept is visually expressed through the festival's name, which appears to exert a gravitational pull on the text boxes, causing them to "stick" to it. Additionally, the 'f's in the wordmark are merged into a continuous line reminiscent of a magnet, with the motion graphics further emphasising the gravitational pull as the name floats and other elements follow. 15. Studio Spass Studio Spass is a creative studio based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, focused on vibrant and dynamic identity systems that reflect the diverse and multifaceted nature of cultural institutions. One of their recent landmark projects was Bigger, a large-scale typographic installation created for the Shenzhen Art Book Fair. Inspired by tear-off calendars and the physical act of reading, Studio Spass used 264 A4 books, with each page displaying abstract details, to create an evolving grid of colour and type. Visitors were invited to interact with the installation by flipping pages, constantly revealing new layers of design and a hidden message: "Enjoy books!" 16. Applied Design Works Applied Design Works is a New York studio that specialises in reshaping businesses through branding and design. They provide expertise in design, strategy, and implementation, with a focus on building long-term, collaborative relationships with their clients. We were thrilled by their recent work for Grand Central Madison (the station that connects Long Island to Grand Central Terminal), where they were instrumental in ushering in a new era for the transportation hub. Applied Design sought to create a commuter experience that imbued the spirit of New York, showcasing its diversity of thought, voice, and scale that befits one of the greatest cities in the world and one of the greatest structures in it. 17. The Chase The Chase Creative Consultants is a Manchester-based independent creative consultancy with over 35 years of experience, known for blending humour, purpose, and strong branding to rejuvenate popular consumer campaigns. "We're not designers, writers, advertisers or brand strategists," they say, "but all of these and more. An ideas-based creative studio." Recently, they were tasked with shaping the identity of York Central, a major urban regeneration project set to become a new city quarter for York. The Chase developed the identity based on extensive public engagement, listening to residents of all ages about their perceptions of the city and their hopes for the new area. The resulting brand identity uses linear forms that subtly reference York's famous railway hub, symbolising the long-standing connections the city has fostered. 18. A Practice for Everyday Life Based in London and founded by Kirsty Carter and Emma Thomas, A Practice for Everyday Life built a reputation as a sought-after collaborator with like-minded companies, galleries, institutions and individuals. Not to mention a conceptual rigour that ensures each design is meaningful and original. Recently, they've been working on the visual identity for Muzej Lah, a new international museum for contemporary art in Bled, Slovenia opening in 2026. This centres around a custom typeface inspired by the slanted geometry and square detailing of its concrete roof tiles. It also draws from European modernist typography and the experimental lettering of Jože Plečnik, one of Slovenia's most influential architects.⁠ A Practice for Everyday Life. Photo: Carol Sachs Alexey Brodovitch: Astonish Me publication design by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2024. Photo: Ed Park La Biennale di Venezia identity by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2022. Photo: Thomas Adank CAM – Centro de Arte Moderna Gulbenkian identity by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2024. Photo: Sanda Vučković 19. Studio Nari Studio Nari is a London-based creative and branding agency partnering with clients around the world to build "brands that truly connect with people". NARI stands, by the way, for Not Always Right Ideas. As they put it, "It's a name that might sound odd for a branding agency, but it reflects everything we believe." One landmark project this year has been a comprehensive rebrand for the electronic music festival Field Day. Studio Nari created a dynamic and evolving identity that reflects the festival's growth and its connection to the electronic music scene and community. The core idea behind the rebrand is a "reactive future", allowing the brand to adapt and grow with the festival and current trends while maintaining a strong foundation. A new, steadfast wordmark is at its centre, while a new marque has been introduced for the first time. 20. Beetroot Design Group Beetroot is a 25‑strong creative studio celebrated for its bold identities and storytelling-led approach. Based in Thessaloniki, Greece, their work spans visual identity, print, digital and motion, and has earned international recognition, including Red Dot Awards. Recently, they also won a Wood Pencil at the D&AD Awards 2025 for a series of posters created to promote live jazz music events. The creative idea behind all three designs stems from improvisation as a key feature of jazz. Each poster communicates the artist's name and other relevant information through a typographical "improvisation". 21. Kind Studio Kind Studio is an independent creative agency based in London that specialises in branding and digital design, as well as offering services in animation, creative and art direction, and print design. Their goal is to collaborate closely with clients to create impactful and visually appealing designs. One recent project that piqued our interest was a bilingual, editorially-driven digital platform for FC Como Women, a professional Italian football club. To reflect the club's ambition of promoting gender equality and driving positive social change within football, the new website employs bold typography, strong imagery, and an empowering tone of voice to inspire and disseminate its message. 22. Slug Global Slug Global is a creative agency and art collective founded by artist and musician Bosco (Brittany Bosco). Focused on creating immersive experiences "for both IRL and URL", their goal is to work with artists and brands to establish a sustainable media platform that embodies the values of young millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha. One of Slug Global's recent projects involved a collaboration with SheaMoisture and xoNecole for a three-part series called The Root of It. This series celebrates black beauty and hair, highlighting its significance as a connection to ancestry, tradition, blueprint and culture for black women. 23. Little Troop New York studio Little Troop crafts expressive and intimate branding for lifestyle, fashion, and cultural clients. Led by creative directors Noemie Le Coz and Jeremy Elliot, they're known for their playful and often "kid-like" approach to design, drawing inspiration from their own experiences as 90s kids. One of their recent and highly acclaimed projects is the visual identity for MoMA's first-ever family festival, Another World. Little Troop was tasked with developing a comprehensive visual identity that would extend from small items, such as café placemats, to large billboards. Their designs were deliberately a little "dream-like" and relied purely on illustration to sell the festival without needing photography. Little Troop also carefully selected seven colours from MoMA's existing brand guidelines to strike a balance between timelessness, gender neutrality, and fun. 24. Morcos Key Morcos Key is a Brooklyn-based design studio co-founded by Jon Key and Wael Morcos. Collaborating with a diverse range of clients, including arts and cultural institutions, non-profits and commercial enterprises, they're known for translating clients' stories into impactful visual systems through thoughtful conversation and formal expression. One notable project is their visual identity work for Hammer & Hope, a magazine that focuses on politics and culture within the black radical tradition. For this project, Morcos Key developed not only the visual identity but also a custom all-caps typeface to reflect the publication's mission and content. 25. Thirst Thirst, also known as Thirst Craft, is an award-winning strategic drinks packaging design agency based in Glasgow, Scotland, with additional hubs in London and New York. Founded in 2015 by Matthew Stephen Burns and Christopher John Black, the company specializes in building creatively distinctive and commercially effective brands for the beverage industry. To see what they're capable of, check out their work for SKYY Vodka. The new global visual identity system, called Audacious Glamour', aims to unify SKYY under a singular, powerful idea. The visual identity benefits from bolder framing, patterns, and a flavour-forward colour palette to highlight each product's "juicy attitude", while the photography style employs macro shots and liquid highlights to convey a premium feel.

If you’ve ever flown through outer space, at least while watching a documentary or a science fiction film, you’ve seen how artists turn astronomical findings into stunning visuals. But in the process of visualizing data for their latest planetarium show, a production team at New York’s American Museum of Natural History made a surprising discovery of their own: a trillion-and-a-half mile long spiral of material drifting along the edge of our solar system. “So this is a really fun thing that happened,” says Jackie Faherty, the museum’s senior scientist. Last winter, Faherty and her colleagues were beneath the dome of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, fine-tuning a scene that featured the Oort cloud, the big, thick bubble surrounding our Sun and planets that’s filled with ice and rock and other remnants from the solar system’s infancy. The Oort cloud begins far beyond Neptune, around one and a half light years from the Sun. It has never been directly observed; its existence is inferred from the behavior of long-period comets entering the inner solar system. The cloud is so expansive that the Voyager spacecraft, our most distant probes, would need another 250 years just to reach its inner boundary; to reach the other side, they would need about 30,000 years.  The 30-minute show, Encounters in the Milky Way, narrated by Pedro Pascal, guides audiences on a trip through the galaxy across billions of years. For a section about our nascent solar system, the writing team decided “there’s going to be a fly-by” of the Oort cloud, Faherty says. “But what does our Oort cloud look like?”  To find out, the museum consulted astronomers and turned to David Nesvorný, a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. He provided his model of the millions of particles believed to make up the Oort cloud, based on extensive observational data. “Everybody said, go talk to Nesvorný. He’s got the best model,” says Faherty. And “everybody told us, ‘There’s structure in the model,’ so we were kind of set up to look for stuff,” she says.  The museum’s technical team began using Nesvorný’s model to simulate how the cloud evolved over time. Later, as the team projected versions of the fly-by scene into the dome, with the camera looking back at the Oort cloud, they saw a familiar shape, one that appears in galaxies, Saturn’s rings, and disks around young stars. “We’re flying away from the Oort cloud and out pops this spiral, a spiral shape to the outside of our solar system,” Faherty marveled. “A huge structure, millions and millions of particles.” She emailed Nesvorný to ask for “more particles,” with a render of the scene attached. “We noticed the spiral of course,” she wrote. “And then he writes me back: ‘what are you talking about, a spiral?’”  While fine-tuning a simulation of the Oort cloud, a vast expanse of ice material leftover from the birth of our Sun, the ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ production team noticed a very clear shape: a structure made of billions of comets and shaped like a spiral-armed galaxy, seen here in a scene from the final Space Show (curving, dusty S-shape behind the Sun) [Image: © AMNH] More simulations ensued, this time on Pleiades, a powerful NASA supercomputer. In high-performance computer simulations spanning 4.6 billion years, starting from the Solar System’s earliest days, the researchers visualized how the initial icy and rocky ingredients of the Oort cloud began circling the Sun, in the elliptical orbits that are thought to give the cloud its rough disc shape. The simulations also incorporated the physics of the Sun’s gravitational pull, the influences from our Milky Way galaxy, and the movements of the comets themselves.  In each simulation, the spiral persisted. “No one has ever seen the Oort structure like that before,” says Faherty. Nesvorný “has a great quote about this: ‘The math was all there. We just needed the visuals.’”  An illustration of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in relation to our solar system. [Image: NASA] As the Oort cloud grew with the early solar system, Nesvorný and his colleagues hypothesize that the galactic tide, or the gravitational force from the Milky Way, disrupted the orbits of some comets. Although the Sun pulls these objects inward, the galaxy’s gravity appears to have twisted part of the Oort cloud outward, forming a spiral tilted roughly 30 degrees from the plane of the solar system. “As the galactic tide acts to decouple bodies from the scattered disk it creates a spiral structure in physical space that is roughly 15,000 astronomical units in length,” or around 1.4 trillion miles from one end to the other, the researchers write in a paper that was published in March in the Astrophysical Journal. “The spiral is long-lived and persists in the inner Oort Cloud to the present time.” “The physics makes sense,” says Faherty. “Scientists, we’re amazing at what we do, but it doesn’t mean we can see everything right away.” It helped that the team behind the space show was primed to look for something, says Carter Emmart, the museum’s director of astrovisualization and director of Encounters. Astronomers had described Nesvorný’s model as having “a structure,” which intrigued the team’s artists. “We were also looking for structure so that it wouldn’t just be sort of like a big blob,” he says. “Other models were also revealing this—but they just hadn’t been visualized.” The museum’s attempts to simulate nature date back to its first habitat dioramas in the early 1900s, which brought visitors to places that hadn’t yet been captured by color photos, TV, or the web. The planetarium, a night sky simulator for generations of would-be scientists and astronauts, got its start after financier Charles Hayden bought the museum its first Zeiss projector. The planetarium now boasts one of the world’s few Zeiss Mark IX systems. Still, these days the star projector is rarely used, Emmart says, now that fulldome laser projectors can turn the old static starfield into 3D video running at 60 frames per second. The Hayden boasts six custom-built Christie projectors, part of what the museum’s former president called “the most advanced planetarium ever attempted.”  In about 1.3 million years, the star system Gliese 710 is set to pass directly through our Oort Cloud, an event visualized in a dramatic scene in ‘Encounters in the Milky Way.’ During its flyby, our systems will swap icy comets, flinging some out on new paths. [Image: © AMNH] Emmart recalls how in 1998, when he and other museum leaders were imagining the future of space shows at the Hayden—now with the help of digital projectors and computer graphics—there were questions over how much space they could try to show. “We’re talking about these astronomical data sets we could plot to make the galaxy and the stars,” he says. “Of course, we knew that we would have this star projector, but we really wanted to emphasize astrophysics with this dome video system. I was drawing pictures of this just to get our heads around it and noting the tip of the solar system to the Milky Way is about 60 degrees. And I said, what are we gonna do when we get outside the Milky Way?’ “Then [planetarium’s director] Neil Degrasse Tyson “goes, ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, Carter, we have enough to do. And just plotting the Milky Way, that’s hard enough.’ And I said, ‘well, when we exit the Milky Way and we don’t see any other galaxies, that’s sort of like astronomy in 1920—we thought maybe the entire universe is just a Milky Way.'” “And that kind of led to a chaotic discussion about, well, what other data sets are there for this?” Emmart adds. The museum worked with astronomer Brent Tully, who had mapped 3500 galaxies beyond the Milky Way, in collaboration with the National Center for Super Computing Applications. “That was it,” he says, “and that seemed fantastical.” By the time the first planetarium show opened at the museum’s new Rose Center for Earth and Space in 2000, Tully had broadened his survey “to an amazing” 30,000 galaxies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey followed—it’s now at data release 18—with six million galaxies. To build the map of the universe that underlies Encounters, the team also relied on data from the European Space Agency’s space observatory, Gaia. Launched in 2013 and powered down in March of this year, Gaia brought an unprecedented precision to our astronomical map, plotting the distance between 1.7 billion stars. To visualize and render the simulated data, Jon Parker, the museum’s lead technical director, relied on Houdini, a 3D animation tool by Toronto-based SideFX. The goal is immersion, “whether it’s in front of the buffalo downstairs, and seeing what those herds were like before we decimated them, to coming in this room and being teleported to space, with an accurate foundation in the science,” Emmart says. “But the art is important, because the art is the way to the soul.”  The museum, he adds, is “a testament to wonder. And I think wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation.” Three-D visuals aren’t just powerful tools for communicating science, but increasingly crucial for science itself. Software like OpenSpace, an open source simulation tool developed by the museum, along with the growing availability of high-performance computing, are making it easier to build highly detailed visuals of ever larger and more complex collections of data. “Anytime we look, literally, from a different angle at catalogs of astronomical positions, simulations, or exploring the phase space of a complex data set, there is great potential to discover something new,” says Brian R. Kent, an astronomer and director of science communications at National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “There is also a wealth of astronomics tatical data in archives that can be reanalyzed in new ways, leading to new discoveries.” As the instruments grow in size and sophistication, so does the data, and the challenge of understanding it. Like all scientists, astronomers are facing a deluge of data, ranging from gamma rays and X-rays to ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio bands. Our Oort cloud (center), a shell of icy bodies that surrounds the solar system and extends one-and-a-half light years in every direction, is shown in this scene from ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ along with the Oort clouds of neighboring stars. The more massive the star, the larger its Oort cloud [Image: © AMNH ] “New facilities like the Next Generation Very Large Array here at NRAO or the Vera Rubin Observatory and LSST survey project will generate large volumes of data, so astronomers have to get creative with how to analyze it,” says Kent.  More data—and new instruments—will also be needed to prove the spiral itself is actually there: there’s still no known way to even observe the Oort cloud.  Instead, the paper notes, the structure will have to be measured from “detection of a large number of objects” in the radius of the inner Oort cloud or from “thermal emission from small particles in the Oort spiral.”  The Vera C. Rubin Observatory, a powerful, U.S.-funded telescope that recently began operation in Chile, could possibly observe individual icy bodies within the cloud. But researchers expect the telescope will likely discover only dozens of these objects, maybe hundreds, not enough to meaningfully visualize any shapes in the Oort cloud.  For us, here and now, the 1.4 trillion mile-long spiral will remain confined to the inside of a dark dome across the street from Central Park.

News Planetary Science A possible new dwarf planet skirts the solar system’s edge The faraway object travels in a weird, wide orbit A newly discovered object called 2017 OF201, likely a dwarf planet, travels in an extremely wide elliptical orbit (yellow), a new study suggests. The orbit of the dwarf planets Sedna and Pluto are shown for reference. Tony873004/Wikimedia Commons (CC0 1.0) By McKenzie Prillaman June 6, 2025 at 11:00 am A possible cousin of Pluto seems to be circling the far reaches of the solar system. The dwarf planet candidate 2017 OF201 travels in a superwide orbit, with the sun relatively near one end of its huge elliptical path, researchers report in a paper submitted May 21 to arXiv.org. Its route differs from those of other distant large objects in a way that may challenge the idea that the solar system houses an undiscovered planet. For around a decade, researchers have been hunting for a planet beyond Pluto, demoted to a dwarf planet in 2006. The gravitational pull of an unknown giant planet — dubbed Planet Nine or Planet X — could explain the clustered orbits of several faraway objects, whose routes are all roughly oriented the same way. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”

Jarred Roberts, The Conversation Published May 25, 2025 | Comments (1) | The iconic Pinwheel Galaxy, located 25 million light-years away. Hubble Image: NASA, ESA, K. Kuntz (JHU), F. Bresolin (University of Hawaii), J. Trauger (Jet Propulsion Lab), J. Mould (NOAO), Y.-H. Chu (University of Illinois, Urbana) and STScI; CFHT Image: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope/J.-C. Cuillandre/Coelum; NOAO Image: G. Jacoby, B. Bohannan, M. Hanna/NOAO/AURA/NSF My telescope, set up for astrophotography in my light-polluted San Diego backyard, was pointed at a galaxy unfathomably far from Earth. My wife, Cristina, walked up just as the first space photo streamed to my tablet. It sparkled on the screen in front of us. “That’s the Pinwheel galaxy,” I said. The name is derived from its shape–albeit this pinwheel contains about a trillion stars. The light from the Pinwheel traveled for 25 million years across the universe–about 150 quintillion miles–to get to my telescope. My wife wondered: “Doesn’t light get tired during such a long journey?” Her curiosity triggered a thought-provoking conversation about light. Ultimately, why doesn’t light wear out and lose energy over time? Let’s talk about light I am an astrophysicist, and one of the first things I learned in my studies is how light often behaves in ways that defy our intuitions. Light is electromagnetic radiation: basically, an electric wave and a magnetic wave coupled together and traveling through space-time. It has no mass. That point is critical because the mass of an object, whether a speck of dust or a spaceship, limits the top speed it can travel through space. But because light is massless, it’s able to reach the maximum speed limit in a vacuum–about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second, or almost 6 trillion miles per year (9.6 trillion kilometers). Nothing traveling through space is faster. To put that into perspective: In the time it takes you to blink your eyes, a particle of light travels around the circumference of the Earth more than twice. As incredibly fast as that is, space is incredibly spread out. Light from the Sun, which is 93 million miles (about 150 million kilometers) from Earth, takes just over eight minutes to reach us. In other words, the sunlight you see is eight minutes old. Alpha Centauri, the nearest star to us after the Sun, is 26 trillion miles away (about 41 trillion kilometers). So by the time you see it in the night sky, its light is just over four years old. Or, as astronomers say, it’s four light years away. Imagine–a trip around the world at the speed of light. With those enormous distances in mind, consider Cristina’s question: How can light travel across the universe and not slowly lose energy? Actually, some light does lose energy. This happens when it bounces off something, such as interstellar dust, and is scattered about. But most light just goes and goes, without colliding with anything. This is almost always the case because space is mostly empty–nothingness. So there’s nothing in the way. When light travels unimpeded, it loses no energy. It can maintain that 186,000-mile-per-second speed forever. It’s about time Here’s another concept: Picture yourself as an astronaut on board the International Space Station. You’re orbiting at 17,000 miles (about 27,000 kilometers) per hour. Compared with someone on Earth, your wristwatch will tick 0.01 seconds slower over one year. That’s an example of time dilation–time moving at different speeds under different conditions. If you’re moving really fast, or close to a large gravitational field, your clock will tick more slowly than someone moving slower than you, or who is further from a large gravitational field. To say it succinctly, time is relative. Even astronauts aboard the International Space Station experience time dilation, although the effect is extremely small. NASA Now consider that light is inextricably connected to time. Picture sitting on a photon, a fundamental particle of light; here, you’d experience maximum time dilation. Everyone on Earth would clock you at the speed of light, but from your reference frame, time would completely stop. That’s because the “clocks” measuring time are in two different places going vastly different speeds: the photon moving at the speed of light, and the comparatively slowpoke speed of Earth going around the Sun. What’s more, when you’re traveling at or close to the speed of light, the distance between where you are and where you’re going gets shorter. That is, space itself becomes more compact in the direction of motion–so the faster you can go, the shorter your journey has to be. In other words, for the photon, space gets squished. Which brings us back to my picture of the Pinwheel galaxy. From the photon’s perspective, a star within the galaxy emitted it, and then a single pixel in my backyard camera absorbed it, at exactly the same time. Because space is squished, to the photon the journey was infinitely fast and infinitely short, a tiny fraction of a second. But from our perspective on Earth, the photon left the galaxy 25 million years ago and traveled 25 million light years across space until it landed on my tablet in my backyard. And there, on a cool spring night, its stunning image inspired a delightful conversation between a nerdy scientist and his curious wife. Jarred Roberts, Project Scientist, University of California, San Diego. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Daily Newsletter You May Also Like By Isaac Schultz Published January 31, 2025