Here’s Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz.


Here’s Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz

 “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” –Nikola Tesla

“What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” –Albert Einstein

Tesla said it. Einstein Agreed. Science proved it. It is a known fact that everything—including our own bodies—is made up of energy vibrating at different frequencies. That being said, can sound frequencies affect us? They sure can.

Frequencies affect frequencies; much like mixing ingredients with other ingredients affects the overall flavor of a meal. The way frequencies affect the physical world has been demonstrated through various experiments such as the science of Cymatics and water memory.


The science of Cymatics illustrates that when sound frequencies move through a particular medium such as water, air or sand, it directly alters the vibration of matter. Below are pictures demonstrating how particles adjust to different frequencies.
Here's Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz - Cymatics
Water memory also illustrates how our own intentions can even alter the material world. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Masaru Emoto, who has performed studies showing how simple intentions through sound, emotions and thoughts can dramatically shape the way water crystallizes.
Here's Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz - Water Memory
We all hold a certain vibrational frequency, not to mention our bodies are estimated to be about 70% water… so we can probably expect that musical frequencies can alter our own vibrational state. Some may call this ‘pseudoscience,’ however the science and patterns shown above don’t lie. Every expression through sound, emotion or thought holds a specific frequency which influences everything around it—much like a single drop of water can create a larger ripple effect in a large body of water.

Music Frequency

With this concept in mind, let us bring our attention to the frequency of the music we listen to. Most music worldwide has been tuned to A=440 Hz since the International Standards Organization (ISO) promoted it in 1953. However, studies regarding the vibratory nature of the universe indicate that this pitch is disharmonious with the natural resonance of nature and may generate negative effects on human behaviour and consciousness. Certain theories even suggest that the nazi regime has been in favor of adopting this pitch as standard after conducting scientific researches to determine which range of frequencies best induce fear and aggression. Whether or not the conspiracy is factual, interesting studies and observations have pointed towards the benefits of tuning music to A=432 Hz instead.

432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. Studies reveal that 432hz tuning vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiraling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the Sun, Earth, and the moon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Sri Yantra among many other sacred sites.

“From my own observations, some of the harmonic overtone partials of A=432hz 12T5 appear to line up to natural patterns and also the resonance of solitons. Solitons need a specific range to form into the realm of density and span from the micro to the macro cosmos. Solitons are not only found in water mechanics, but also in the ion-acoustic breath between electrons and protons.” – Brian T. Collins

Here's Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz
Another interesting factor to consider is that the A=432 Hz tuning correlates with the color spectrum while the A=440 Hz is off.

Here's Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz

“The Solar Spectrum & The Cosmic Keyboard:

All of the frequencies in the spectrum are related in octaves, from gamma rays to subharmonics. These colors and notes are also related to our Chakras and other important energy centers. If we are to understand that (…) Chakras are connected to the Seven Rays of the Solar Spectrum, then the notes and frequencies we use for the same should be the same. A432 Hz is the tuning of the Cosmic Keyboard or Cosmic Pitchfork, as opposed to the A440 Hz modern ‘standard.’ It places C# at 136.10 Hz ‘Om,’ which is the main note of the Sitar in classical Indian music and the pitch of the chants of the Tibetan monks, who tell us ‘It comes from nature.’” – Dameon Keller

Let’s explore the experiential difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. The noticeable difference music lovers and musicians have noticed with music tuned in A=432 Hz is that it is not only more beautiful and harmonious to the ears, but it also induces a more inward experience that is felt inside the body at the spine and heart. Music tuned in A=440 Hz was felt as a more outward and mental experience, and was felt at the side of the head which projected outwards. Audiophiles have also stated that A=432hz music seems to be non-local and can fill an entire room, whereas A=440hz can be perceived as directional or linear in sound propagation.

“The ancients tuned their instruments at an A of 432 Hz instead of 440 Hz – and for a good reason. There are plenty of music examples on the internet that you can listen to, in order to establish the difference for yourself. Attuning the instrument to 432 Hz results in a more relaxing sound, while 440 Hz slightly tenses up to body. This is because 440 Hz is out of tune with both macrocosmos and microcosmos. 432 Hz on the contrary is in tune. To give an example of how this is manifested microcosmically: our breath (0,3 Hz) and our puls (1,2 Hz) relate to the frequency of the lower octave of an A of 432 Hz (108 Hz) as 1:360 and 1:90.” – innergarden.org

“The overall sound difference was noticeable, the 432 version sounding warmer, clearer and instantly sounded more listenable but the 440 version felt tighter, with more aggressive energy.” – Anonymous guitarist

The video below was created by someone with no preference or opinion on whether A=432 Hz or A=440 Hz is better. Therefore, the way both versions of the melody is played is unbiased. It is up to us to tune in and feel which one feels more harmonious to us!

Here’s another example:
David Helpling – Sticks and Stones in 440 hz: http://youtu.be/PewsS9Y9pVo
David Helpling – Sticks and Stones in 432 hz: http://youtu.be/w8KEVikJMck

I personally have enjoyed many bands, artists and styles of music even though they were tuning in A=440 hz, however by comparing a few songs in both A=432 hz and A=440 hz, I can feel and hear the difference. I wouldn’t say that my experience of 440hz music has turned me into an aggressive person, but I can understand how an entire population being exposed to music that is more mind directed as opposed to heart directed—not to mention all of the materialistic and ego-driven lyrics in most popular music—is a perfect combination to maintain a more discordant frequency and state of consciousness within humanity.

“Music based on C=128hz (C note in concert A=432hz) will support humanity on its way towards spiritual freedom. The inner ear of the human being is built on C=128 hz” – Rudolph Steiner

I cannot state with complete certainty that every idea suggested in this article is 100% accurate, nor am I an expert on the subject. For this reason, I suggest that we each do our own research on the matter with an open yet discerning mind if we are looking for scientific validation. However, we all possess intuition and the ability to observe without judgment—which can be just as valuable (if not more) as filling our heads with external data and even scientific concepts. It is therefore up to us to tone down the urge to jump to conclusions and instead EXPERIENCE the difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. To do so, we need to listen with our entire body and a neutral awareness as opposed to with our mental ideas, judgments and preconceptions. Let me know which frequency resonates more with you!

If you are interested in changing your music’s pitch to A=432 hz, click HERE to learn how to do it.

Sources: Omega432, Inner Garden, Daemon Keller, Veritas, Why Don’t You Try This, Attuned Vibrations, Humans Are Free

Advertisements

3D-printed components flown in British fighter jet


A Tornado fighter jet fitted with metal components created on a 3D printer undertook a successful test flight in Britain last month, defence company BAE Systems said Sunday.

The plane was equipped with a 3D-printed protective cover for the cockpit radio, a protective guard in the landing gear and support struts on the air intake door, the British firm said.

The announcement follows NASA’s successful test of a 3D-printed rocket engine component in August last year, as aerospace companies seek cheaper and quicker ways to manufacture engineering parts.

“You are suddenly not fixed in terms of where you have to manufacture these things,” said Mike Murray, Head of Airframe Integration at BAE Systems, announcing the successful test flight at the firm’s airfield in Warton, northwest England.

https://i0.wp.com/cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2014/adesignerloo.jpg

“You can manufacture the products and whatever base you want, providing you can get a machine there, which means you can also start to support other platforms such as ships and aircraft carriers.

“And if it’s feasible to get machines out on the front line, it also gives improved capability where we wouldn’t traditionally have any manufacturing support.”

BAE said some of the parts—produced at a Royal Air Force base in eastern England—cost less than £100 ($165, 120 euros) to manufacture, and had the potential to save hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, without giving details.

Can I increase my brain power?


A billion-dollar industry has grown up around our desire to be more intelligent. But is it really possible to make yourself smarter?
Oliver Burkeman

Oliver Burkeman: ‘Unless the task keeps getting harder, so you never quite get the hang of it, there’s no way you’ll get more intelligent.’ Photograph: Christopher Lane for the Guardian

What happens when you attach several electrodes to your forehead, connect them via wires to a nine-volt battery and resistor, ramp up the current and send an electrical charge directly into your brain? Most people would be content just to guess, but last summer a 33-year-old from Alabama named Anthony Lee decided to find out. “Here we go… oooahh, that stings a little!” he says, in one of the YouTube videos recording his exploits. “Whoa. That hurts… Ow!” The video cuts out. When Lee reappears, the electrodes are gone: “Something very strange happened,” he says thoughtfully. “It felt like something popped.” (In another video, he reports a sudden white flash in his visual field, which he describes, in a remarkably calm voice, as “cool”.) You might conclude from this that Lee is a very foolish person, but the quest he’s on is one that has occupied scientists, philosophers and fortune-hunters for centuries: to find some artificial way to improve upon the basic cognitive equipment we’re born with, and thus become smarter and maintain mental sharpness into old age. “It started with Limitless,” Lee told me – the 2011 film in which an author suffering from writer’s block discovers a drug that can supercharge his faculties. “I figured, I’m a pretty average-intelligence guy, so I could use a little stimulation.”

The scientific establishment, it’s fair to say, remains far from convinced that it’s possible to enhance your brain’s capacities in a lasting way – whether via electrical jolts, brain-training games, dietary supplements, drugs or anything else. But that hasn’t impeded the growth of a huge industry – and thriving amateur subculture – of “neuro-enhancement”, which, according to the American Psychological Association, is worth $1bn a year. “Brain fitness technology” has been projected to be worth up to $8bn in 2015 as baby boomers age. Anthony Lee belongs to the sub-subculture of DIY transcranial direct-current stimulation, or tDCS, whose members swap wiring diagrams and cautionary tales online, though if that makes you queasy, you can always pay £179 for Foc.us, a readymade tDCS headset that promises to “make your synapses fire faster” and “excite your prefrontal cortex”, so that you can “get the edge in online gaming”. Or you could start spending time on a brain-training site such as Lumosity or HappyNeuron, the latter boasting games “scientifically designed to stimulate your cognitive functions”. Or start drinking Brain TonIQ or Brain Candy or Nawgan or NeuroPassion, or any of the other “functional drinks” that promise to push you past your cognitive limits.

One problem with Brain TonIQ is that it’s disgusting, albeit not as disgusting as Nawgan (“What To Drink When You Want To Think”), which tastes so metallic, it’s like drinking the can that it comes in. For the last two weeks, I’ve been working through a succession of these drinks – and a packet of Focus Formula herbal pills – while wearing a NeuroSky MindWave headset, which thankfully isn’t sending current to my brain, but claims to be monitoring my brainwaves via a sensor on my forehead. This is a system of “neurofeedback”: the headset is linked to my laptop, which plays the sound of Buddhist chanting through headphones; when my attention wavers, the pitch of the chanting falls, so I’m supposedly being trained to concentrate. I’ve been playing brain-training games daily. At the start of all this, I took a “culture-neutral” intelligence test, and scored 129, on a scale derived from IQ (which stops being meaningfully measurable around 200). It’s not technically an IQ score – and IQ scores are very questionable things, anyway – but if I can boost it by a few points, I’ll be willing to declare victory.

Yes, yes, I’m aware that this is all hopelessly unscientific. The intelligence test wasn’t a formal one; the placebo effect could be enormous; and even if some of my tactics worked, I’d have no way of identifying which. But in the world of cognitive enhancement, good science regularly takes a back seat to speculative self-experimentation. Dwell on the science and it’s liable to make you anxious: according to one study, a key ingredient in Brain TonIQ, dimethylaminoethanol, has been shown to decrease the average lifespan of aged quail. When you’re trying to become superhuman at thinking, there are some things it’s best not to think about.

The big conundrum at the core of the brain-enhancement debate is this: what counts as “getting smarter”? Many of the claims made by the industry aren’t false, but rather boringly true: of course online training games “stimulate your cognitive functions” and “change your brain”, since pretty much everything does. And nobody disputes that it’s possible to learn new skills, such as speaking German, or riding a bike; nor that taking a substance such as Modafinil or Adderall, now routinely deployed by some students as “study drugs”, will temporarily supercharge your focus. It’s also pretty easy – relatively speaking – to boost your working memory, for example by learning tricks to remember long strings of digits, as described by Joshua Foer in his bestseller Moonwalking With Einstein. But those tricks aren’t transferable: ask a champion digit-memoriser to solve a cryptic crossword, and he’ll probably do no better than the rest of us.

The holy grail is to find a way of increasing “fluid intelligence”, our underlying capacity to hold information in conscious memory and then manipulate it in order to solve complex problems or come up with new ideas. Fluid intelligence is what IQ tests try to measure – albeit, historically, with all sorts of cultural biases – and the implications of improving it could be huge. “There are approximately 10 million scientists in the world,” Nick Bostrom, of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, told Time magazine a while back. “If you improve their cognition by 1%, the gain would hardly be noticeable. But it could be equivalent to instantly creating 100,000 new scientists.” But even how to think about this in the first place is a tricky question, as the Imperial College neuroscientist Adam Hampshire points out, because “general intelligence” is a construct: it’s an idea we use to group together certain aspects of brainpower, so it’s unlikely to be related to just one aspect or system in the brain.

Until only six years ago, when it came to the possibility of increasing fluid intelligence, the verdict was almost uniformly pessimistic. But then, in 2008, a pair of workaholic psychologists from Switzerland, Susanne Jaeggi and her boyfriend Martin Buschkuehl, published a study that sent eyebrows shooting upwards, and that’s still being fiercely debated today. “That study was the D-day invasion,” says the science writer Dan Hurley, whose book Smarter: The New Science Of Building Brain Power will be published in the UK this month. “That really put down a marker that said: this is real. You can really do this.”

The Jaeggi study relied on an especially vicious brain-training game known as the “dual n-back”. You can try it for yourself at soakyourhead.com, but I can’t recommend it, because it’s hellish. “The first time they try it, everybody’s impression is, ‘Oh, this is impossible, this is crazy, this is awful,'” says Hurley. “It feels like someone just asked you to pick up a car.” The game works like this: you hear a voice, slowly reciting a sequence of letters: “B… K… P… K…” Whenever you hear a letter that’s the same as the one before last, you press the L key on your computer. So far, so tolerable – but at the same time, you’re playing a visual version of the same game, in which one of a set of eight squares lights up in orange; when the illuminated square is the same as the one before last, you press your computer’s A key. Doing both these tasks at once feels savagely unpleasant, but if you make it through to the end, something worse is in store: on the next level, you do the same thing, except you’re looking for matches two times before last. If you can make it to the next stage – looking for matches three times before last – you’re probably a witch.

Oliver Burkeman wearing a NeuroSky MindWave headset ‘I’ve been working through these drinks while wearing a NeuroSky MindWave headset, which claims to be monitoring my brainwaves via a sensor on my forehead.’ Photograph: Christopher Lane for the GuardianJaeggi and Buschkuehl persuaded undergraduates at the University of Bern, and later other subjects, to submit to the dual n-back for several minutes a day, over weeks. They tested their fluid intelligence using Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a widely respected test involving visual pattern manipulations. (Think of those old newspaper ads for Mensa, and you won’t be far off.) What they discovered upended the conventional wisdom: after 19 days of training, their subjects recorded a 44% average performance boost on the Raven test. By then, the first generation of commercial brain games had been largely discredited: playing Dr Kawashima’s Brain Training on your Nintendo, it’s now clear, will only make you better at playing Dr Kawashima’s Brain Training on your Nintendo. But playing the dual n-back, it appeared, could truly make people more intelligent.

There are few surer ways to create a firestorm among psychologists and neuroscientists, it turns out, than to claim such impressive changes to an aspect of intelligence long considered fixed. Some in the field compared the Jaeggi findings to cold fusion, which is as close as you can get to accusing a fellow academic of hallucinating while remaining minimally polite. Some prominently reported attempts to replicate the Jaeggi findings failed, but others found similar positive results in schoolchildren and the elderly. In 2013, a meta-analysis based on 23 studies found “no convincing evidence of the generalisation of working memory training to other skills”, though there’s been debate about the selection criteria involved. An earlier British study, conducted with the BBC show Bang Goes The Theory, reached similar conclusions, but didn’t focus on the same kind of game. Interviews conducted for Hurley’s book show the scientific establishment to be well and truly divided. It’s all “a bit of a mess”, Adam Hampshire says, due to the proliferation of numerous small-scale studies, which makes false positives far more likely: “If 1,000 people roll a dice 16 times, some of them are going to get just high numbers” – and those are the studies that get published.

“I know it sounds as if we’re just pouring cold water on this, but the thing is, we’ve been disappointed so many times before,” adds James Thompson, a senior honorary lecturer in psychology at University College London, and a prominent sceptic. “About 40 years ago, it was hyperbaric oxygen for pregnant women, so they’d give birth to geniuses. I got transcranial stimulation at Guy’s hospital in 1969, as a guinea pig. But then you do the hard research and you don’t see much difference.”

Yet it would be very strange, ultimately, if it were to prove utterly impossible to modify your brain’s basic capacities through any form of training. The brain is a physical organ, and its processes are physical processes; why should the capacities we label “fluid intelligence” be uniquely immune to environmental impacts? Your intelligence is surely heavily influenced by your genes – but so (for example) is your height, and that can be affected by environmental factors, specifically how well you’re nourished as a child. “Some people want to assert that it’s unchangeable, as if that’s hard science,” Hurley says. “But it’s actually a much more magical way of thinking about the mind to say that the environment can’t possibly have any effect.”

After four days of 20 minutes doing the dual n-back, I have no idea if it’s working, but it’s definitely hurting. Sadly, that’s probably a good sign, and it’s one thing on which researchers do tend to agree: if intelligence can be boosted by brain games – a very big if – they almost certainly won’t be enjoyable ones. Unless the task involved keeps getting harder, so that you never quite feel you’ve got the hang of it, there’s no way you’ll get more intelligent. When you master a task, your brain becomes more efficient at performing it. And “efficiency is not your friend when it comes to cognitive improvement”, as Andrea Kuszewski, a behavioural therapist trained in neuroscience, and a believer in the promise of intelligence-boosting, puts it. She points to studies of people playing Tetris, which showed an increase in cortical activity and cortical thickness as they struggled to get to grips with the game – but a decrease in both once they’d mastered it.

This is the closest thing you’re going to get to a solid, science-backed piece of advice, when it comes to exercising your brain: don’t let things get too fun. Once you’re pretty good at sudoku, stop doing sudoku; switch to something you’re worse at. Keep seeking challenges that make your head hurt. Nobody ever said getting smarter was going to be easy.

There could be ways to become smarter more quickly, though – so long as you’re willing, like Anthony Lee, to do slightly nerve-racking things with electricity. (“I’m not afraid to experiment,” Lee says: as a child, he was always the one to accept dares. “But I’m a relatively responsible adult, so if I felt there was real danger, I don’t think I’d do it.” Then again, he adds, with a laugh, “I really don’t understand all that much about electronics.”) At a research lab in New Mexico a few years ago, according to a report in Nature, volunteers wearing small wet sponges on their temples played Darwars Ambush!, a soldier-training game sponsored by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa). Darwars Ambush! involves navigating virtual landscapes reminiscent of urban war zones, learning to spot hidden gunmen or deadly explosive devices. After just a few hours’ training, players who’d been receiving a 2-milliamp current through the sponges on their heads showed twice as much improvement on the game than those getting a 20th of that.

The idea of electrically stimulating human bodies goes back at least to the 19th century, when it was used to cure “melancholy”; much later, electroconvulsive therapy would be used to induce seizures in psychiatric patients. Since then, studies have demonstrated that a gentler approach, transcranial magnetic stimulation, can alleviate serious depression and perhaps even trigger bursts of “savant” intellectual prowess, reminiscent of the kind depicted in Rain Man. “How long,” wondered the New York Times in 2003, “before Americans are walking around with humming antidepression helmets and math-enhancing ‘hair-dryers’ on their heads?”

The answer: one decade, if you count the Foc.us tDCS headset, now on sale in the US and UK. The Foc.us describes itself as an accessory for gamers, reportedly since it’s easier to comply with medical regulations that way. But the implicit promise is the same as for the Darpa initiative, and Lee’s home-based tinkering: by temporarily boosting cognitive capacity, tDCS might hugely speed up the learning process. It has also been shown, in one study, to induce “a feeling of anticipated challenge and [a] strong motivation to overcome it”, which would presumably aid learning, too.

Precisely why tDCS works remains partly mysterious – though it’s not enormously surprising that neurons, which transmit information via electrical signals, might do so faster and better with an electrical boost from outside. Dan Hurley quotes Roy Hoshi Hamilton, director of the Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation at the University of Pennsylvania: “What is a thought? A thought is what happens when some pattern of firing of neurons has happened in your brain. So if you have a technology that makes it ever so slightly easier for lots and lots of these neurons… to do their thing, then it doesn’t seem so far-fetched that such a technology, be it ever so humble, would have an effect on cognition.” Repeat the process enough times, and you’d expect the brain’s neural pathways to change, too.

All of which is potentially dangerous, if you do it wrong. You might feel inclined to stick to brain games instead, on the rationale that even if they don’t work, they can’t do any harm. But that position’s arguably misguided. Your time is finite, and every hour you spend wrestling with the dual n-back is one you could have spent doing any of the more mundane things that will certainly promote brain health: doing sufficient physical exercise, getting enough sleep, and preparing and eating healthy food. “Live a good clean life, get proper sleep and you’ll be at the peak of whatever your potential performance is,” James Thompson suggests. “And we use our intelligence to do specific tasks, so don’t waste your time remembering numbers backwards – read a good statistics book. Learn about modern genetics. Read a history of intellectual discovery. Whenever people talk about spending 24 hours on the dual n-back, I think, well, yes, but what else could I do with 24 hours?”

I didn’t spend 24 hours on the dual n-back, or even 12, but I did spend as long as I ever plan to, pumped up on Brain TonIQ or Brain Candy, both of which seemed to give me mild headaches. (I bought these drinks in the US, and not all are available in the UK: the Neuro range, including Neuro Passion and Neuro Sonic, has been temporarily withdrawn from British sale, because ingredients in some of the range don’t have regulators’ approval.)

After two weeks, I retook the intelligence test, based on the Raven matrices, and scored four points higher, at 133. Which proves absolutely nothing at all, though it did make me feel briefly smug.

I plan on never doing the dual n-back again, but I might take Andrea Kuszewski’s advice and try turning off my smartphone’s maps function, forcing myself to navigate the old-fashioned way. “Look, technology like GPS is great,” Kuszewski says, “but there are always costs. If you used to walk to work but then you bought a car and you start driving everywhere instead, well, it’d be a lot easier. But everyone knows your body’s going to suffer as a result! Why should it be any different with your brain?”

The long-sought secret of boosting intelligence could turn out to be straightforward – wherever possible, do things the harder way. I know, I know: it’s not what I wanted to hear, either.

A science news preview of 2014


Rosetta
The Rosetta mission’s Philae lander will try to ride a comet on its sweep into the inner Solar System

As the new year begins, the BBC’s science and environment journalists look ahead to what we can expect to see in the headlines in 2014.

David Shukman, science editor

With the fastest supercomputer in the world and a rover exploring the Moon, Chinese science is enjoying an unstoppable rise. And it’s backed by spending on a scale that would turn most Western scientists green with envy.

One leading British scientist likens China to the United States in the late 20th Century with a large population, huge resources and boundless energy – and “look what America produced in terms of science”. So watch out for advances in everything from cloning to robotics to spaceflight.

The scramble for energy, exacerbated by Chinese growth, is bound to throw up further controversy in the coming year. Russia’s arrest of Greenpeace activists and Ed Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices are both reflections of mounting tension over the future of fuel.

The Arctic is only one of several frontlines: Africa is emerging as a major new source of oil and gas as well. And, as prices rise for the most-needed resources, expect the launch of a new gold rush in a realm many would regard as too precious to touch: the ocean floor.

Jonathan Amos, science correspondent

There is little doubt in my mind where the excitement is going to come from in 2014 in the realm of space exploration. It is Europe’s Rosetta mission to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It is 10 years since the Esa probe was dispatched to rendezvous with the 4km-wide hunk of ice, but the long engagement is very nearly over and the marriage ceremony is about to begin.

Rosetta will be woken from hibernation on 20 January. And after a period of instrument check-out and some rendezvous manoeuvres, the spacecraft should find itself in the vicinity of 67P in August. Mapping and remote-sensing will then be followed by an audacious attempt to put a lander, called Philae, on the comet’s surface in November.

This will occur some 450 million km from the Sun. Assuming Philae gets down successfully, it will try to ride 67P on its sweep into the inner Solar System.

How long Philae can withstand any outgassing as the ices heat up on approach to our star is anyone’s guess. But the little lander will try to hang on for as long as possible with the aid of ice screws and harpoons. This is one space rodeo you won’t want to miss.

Matt McGrath, environment correspondent

The next 12 months promise to be critical in shaping the global response to climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2013 reported that humans were the “dominant cause” of global warming, will bring out two key reports in 2014.

The first, in March, will be on the impacts of rising temperatures, and the second, in April, will be on mitigation – how the world can limit or reduce the gases that are responsible for warming.

The contents of these reports are likely to significantly impact the political response. World leaders have been asked to attend a summit convened by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon in September.

Mr Ban is expecting them to bring firm pledges of emissions cuts to the gathering.

If that happens, then it may re-invigorate the slumbering UN body tasked with negotiating a global climate deal which faces substantial hurdles in getting agreement on the scale of emissions cuts and the finance to cope with climate damage.

The hope, and I stress the word hope, is that when the negotiators gather in Paris towards the end of 2015, they will be finalising the details of a significant, legally binding agreement.

But insiders say that won’t happen unless everything is “pre-cooked” this year.

Otherwise we will see “climate souffle” in Paris – sweet, well made, but ultimately full of hot air.

Rebecca Morelle, science correspondent, BBC World Service

2014 could be the year when scientists shed a spotlight on dark matter. Mysterious particles of this dark “stuff” are thought to make up about a quarter of the Universe. But clear-cut evidence has proven elusive.

Lux detector
Scientists are hoping to witness the rare occasions when dark matter particles bump into regular matter

Early next year, the Large Underground Xenon detector (LUX), which is located at the bottom of a gold mine in South Dakota, will be switched on again. The results from its first phase have confirmed that it’s the most powerful experiment of its kind – and during its next 300-day run it is set to probe deeper than ever before in the hunt for this enigmatic substance.

The prime candidates for dark matter are Weakly Interacting Massive Particles – or WIMPs. Most of the time, these are thought to stream through the Universe without interacting with anything. But scientists think that on very rare occasions these ghost-like WIMPs do bump into regular matter – and it’s these collisions that LUX will aim to detect.

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), a $2bn experiment that is positioned on the International Space Station, is also searching – in a distinct way. The first results, announced in April 2013, were encouraging. AMS detected promising numbers of electrons and their anti-matter counterparts known as positrons that are thought to shower deep space as dark matter particles annihilate each other – but the evidence was not conclusive.

James Morgan, science reporter

Every Christmas, children dream of the new hyper-promoted toy or gadget, and science reporters are no different. 3D printing – last year’s stocking filler – has become this year’s brussel sprouts. In 2014, it’s all about 4D printing – objects that “make themselves” by changing shape after they’ve been printed.

The coming year is also the 60th anniversary of Cern. The world’s biggest physics lab will be celebrating six decades of pan-European endeavour with several special events, beginning in July in Paris at Unesco. But in terms of actual physics, there are unlikely to be any blockbuster results popping out of the sexagenarian institute. That’s because the LHC remains offline until 2015 – undergoing a refit that will double its power. Supersymmetry and dark matter will likely remain mysterious for a little longer, though there could be a surprise or two sprung at the ICHEP conference in Valencia in July.

2014 is also the International Year of Crystallography – a new campaign to raise awareness of the wonderful technique that has revealed the secrets of DNA and drug discovery. It will also promote collaboration among scientists in Africa and Asia. And finally, this wouldn’t be a “preview of the next big thing” without graphene. The “wonder-material” (a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon) has been championed for use in condoms and microscopes. And for its next trick… graphene will allow bendable touchscreens on smartphones, according to Physics World.

Mark Kinver, environment reporter

Maize (AFP)
Food for thought: There is appetite for a consensus on food security but not for GM technology

Since 1996, there has been a growing appetite for the concept of food security. Over the years, researchers have sought to gain a clearer insight into the social, environmental and economic drivers that shape our access to one of the most fundamental ingredients of life. Now, their efforts are bearing fruit. This year saw the first international food security science conference being held in the Netherlands, and one of the title themes of the 2015 Expo in Milan is Feeding the Planet.

On 23 September 2014, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will convene a high-level UN Climate Summit and is inviting world leaders to bring “big ideas”. Expect to see food security among them. When it comes to delivering future food security, there is a consensus among experts that the world needs a wide range of technologies and techniques to feed the changing tastes of a growing population.

But mention GM crops, and that consensus soon breaks down. While the rest of the world grows more and more genetically modified food crops, the EU remains a fallow landscape for the technology. But this politically unappetising issue can no longer be pushed to the side of the EU’s policy plate and it will be on the menu again during 2014.

Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst

In theory this should be a big year for climate change, with three more reports from the UN Panel, amplified by Ban Ki-moon’s heads of governments meeting, all as a precursor to the annual climate conference in Peru.

It will be the last conference before the big 2015 Paris meeting at which nations have promised at last to stop arguing and solve the climate problem; really… no really.

It’s hard to imagine, though, that the mismatch between science and policy will magically shrink over the year, however many reports there may be. The pause in warming remains a puzzle and as the UN Panel’s documents become more rigorously cautious, opponents of climate action will seize on uncertainties as a reason for doing nothing. So don’t hold your breath on CO2.

One aspect of that troublesome gas is likely to feature more prominently in 2014 – the UN will also highlight ocean acidification, caused by the absorption of CO2 emissions by the seas.

The oceans generally are likely to receive a much higher profile. The Economist magazine will hold a “summit” on the seas and so will John Kerry, the US Secretary of State. There will be focus on over-fishing, warming, dead zones, plastics and pollution of all sorts in the UN meta-review of ocean science, probably at the end of the year.

The Arctic will loom large too after Russian prosecutors arguably did Greenpeace a publicity favour by jailing its campaigners. Shell hopes to re-start drilling off Alaska in the summer and should expect more coverage than during their last venture.

Houseplants: The solar cells of tomorrow.


Photosynthesis is a pretty basic process that scientists have understood for quite a while. But a recent breakthrough in the collection of solar energy just might have a few members of the scientific community dusting off their biology textbooks. A team of researchers at the University of Georgia have reportedly figured out how to harness photosynthesis in the creation of electricity.

It’s actually something that it turns out is pretty intuitive, because of the way plants use solar energy to feed themselves is by splitting up water molecules and using the electrons in the creation of sugars. But the research team at the University of Georgia decided that a better use of those electrons, freed by plants from water molecules, were better off powering our devices for us.

And it’s hard to argue with their results. By attaching incredibly fine nanotubules to plant cells and drawing the electrons from them, the team has been able to direct the electrons down a wire as electrical current. Testing the strength of the current, they found that it was twice as powerful as electricity gathered from traditional solar cells of the same size.

Not bad for a technology in its infancy. While the process of affixing nanotubules leaves a bit to be desired from an ease of use standpoint, the team at the University of Georgia envisions a world where our electricity needs are met by plant-based electrical grids. Houseplants could power our computers. Trees could keep our refrigerators running. If they’re right, the future might just have gotten a whole lot greener.

5 Tech Products That Will Be Dead in 5 Years.


With the speed of innovation in the tech industry, we can’t know every piece of technology that will fill our everyday lives in five years, but we can predict what won’t last. As smartphones begin to render low-end cameras obsolete and Netflix continues to upend the DVD and Blu-ray market, it’s clear the technology landscape will look dramatically different in the near future.

Here are five tech products we predict will go the way of the dodo in the next half-decade.

blu-ray-player

Blu-ray/DVD players

Netflix, Netflix, Netflix. Amazingly, the entire demise of Blu-rays and DVDs (and Blockbuster) are due to one company. There were other players in the cultural shift to streaming movies, but Netflix is the iTunes of movies on demand. Funny enough, iTunes offers movie rentals as well.

Blu-ray players were the cream of the crop when it came to watching movies for a few years, but 2013 is expected to be the last year of growth for the market. As the ease of use, accessibility and quality of Netflix  continues to increase as it rolls out 4K streaming over the next few years (not to mention other competitors that may generate interest from users), look for Blu-ray players to quickly become a nice collectible right next to your VCR.

Stand-alone in-car GPS units

In a little over six years, over 1.3 billion iPhone and Android smartphones have been sold around the world, and all of those devices have access to mapping software. Combine that with the propagation of in-car GPS systems, and it spells a swift demise for the stand-alone GPS units for vehicle dashboards, which saw widespread success in the early and mid-2000s. Since smartphones started offering GPS capabilities in 2008, sales of stand-alone GPS units for vehicles have seen a 15-20 percent decline per year.

Costing between $75 and $350, standalone GPS units built for vehicles from companies like Garmin and TomTom are already losing their viability (although these companies are still finding success with GPS units for boating and other outdoor activities), and will likely be completely removed from the market in five years. As battery technology allows for more usage time in smartphones and more people move into newer cars with built-in GPS systems, opting for a standalone GPS unit will cease be an option in the near future.

Dial-up Internet

Yes, dial-up Internet is still around, and people still use it. In fact, 3 percent of Americans still use dial-up Internet. That’s 9 million people, equal to the population of New Jersey. Only 65 percent of Americans currently have broadband connections. Thanks to the necessity of the Internet and new alternatives for connecting to the Internet at faster speeds, this won’t be the case for long.

Internet companies are expanding at a rapid pace, as people in underserved areas demand access to broadband speeds. Expansions will continue over the next five years, thanks in part to the FCC’s Connect America Fund, which aims to bring broadband to 7 million Americans who cannot currently receive it. Combined with expansions from cable companies and new viable alternatives like satellite Internet (which now reaches speeds of 15Mbps), dial-up Internet will finally be extinct in five years.

Low-end digital cameras

We have Apple to thank for this one. The 2010 release of the iPhone 4 and its game-changing camera forced the mobile industry to step up camera quality to the point that it has rendered sub-$200 point-and-shoot cameras all but obsolete. There are still a few straggling consumers out there who prefer the optical zoom or battery life of a low-end digital camera over the one in their smartphone, but at the rate of progression of mobile camera technology, those user complaints will soon be addressed.

In five years, camera companies like Nikon, Canon and Sony will have done away with their low-end camera lines and shifted their focus to the mid- and high-end market, as the low-end market will have been completely subsumed by smartphones.

Car keys

One of the quickest and least discussed changes to happen over the last few years is the reduction of physical car keys and the introduction of smart keys in a number of new vehicles by manufacturers. Surprisingly, the move away from physical car keys happened without much of a fuss from consumers. With benefits like keyless entry, push to start, driver profiles and remote start, buyers of newer vehicles have enjoyed the benefits of the new smart system (though many still end up to getting locked out of their cars if they leave the car while the engine is warming up).

But as quickly as smart keys have come on the scene, smartphones may soon replace them. With apps like OnStar RemoteLink offered by Chevrolet, which allows you to unlock and start a your car with an app, the future of car keys may lie in an app store. Whether we stick with smart keys or move on to something more innovative in five years, you can be sure that the physical car key we have used for the last 70 or so years will be a thing of the past for new cars.

Houseplants: The solar cells of tomorrow.


http://www.dvice.com/2013-5-10/houseplants-solar-cells-tomorrow