Do you see technology improving where we can have replicator

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nec208

Guest
You know the replicator in star trek.How would a replicator work .

They say 100 years or so we may have tissue engineering or organ printing not sure how it works but this sounds very intresting .

Would advances in neonatology allow replicator like in star trek.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
The replicator in Star Trek operates following e=mc2 - it converts energy to mass.

No technology in any foreseeable future will do that.

That said - we do already have prototype "food printers". But you need to carry around the basic food-goo.
 
N

nec208

Guest
adrenalynn":3abk8uoo said:
The replicator in Star Trek operates following e=mc2 - it converts energy to mass.

No technology in any foreseeable future will do that.

That said - we do already have prototype "food printers". But you need to carry around the basic food-goo.
How would you convert energy to mass ?
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Well... Two gamma rays can combine to produce one electron and one anti-electron ("positron"). And then you could separate these two particles when they are attracted to opposite poles of a magnetic field.

Consider what you're asking. e=mc[super]2[/super]

If you DID come up with some way of concentrating the energy into a "little bang" and creating mass from it, let's say you wanted to create 1kg of mass - how much energy would you need, even assuming a 100% efficient conversion?

That's not rhetorical. As a prerequisite, I'm requiring you calculate that before we go any further. :)
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
adrenalynn":25esrb0m said:
If you DID come up with some way of concentrating the energy into a "little bang" and creating mass from it, let's say you wanted to create 1kg of mass - how much energy would you need, even assuming a 100% efficient conversion?
I feel the urge to take a stab at this but I'm not sure how the scales equate... would the energy be in joules?
E=1000g times 300,000,000m/s times 300,000,000m/s=90,000,000,000,000,000,000?

Seems easy enough with infinite vacuum energy ;) and wouldn't we need twice as much energy because half of the mass created would be antimatter?
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
SI units. Joules, grams, meters. Yup!

I was wanting Nec to do the work so he could grasp the scale of what he was asking.

Half antimatter? I hadn't considered that.
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
With all the fancy technology of a galaxy class starship I would think the replicator would be like a water dispenser in the space station... and as you graced us with the blessing of 100% efficiency nothing would be lost so the net energy required would be 0. We could use 1kg of waste and 1kg of antimatter to produce 1kg of gold and 1kg of antigold. The trickiest part would be arranging the energy in the desired configuration to produce the desired atoms, not like anyone has a clue how this happens but we know it does in stars.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
IBM was able to etch a water molecule with atoms back in the mid or late 80's. Have to see if I can find a reference for that. But yeah, pushing atoms around isn't the "hard part". It's finding near infinite joules of energy that is the hard part.
 
V

vattas

Guest
Jerromy":2iyaorck said:
I feel the urge to take a stab at this but I'm not sure how the scales equate... would the energy be in joules?
E=1000g times 300,000,000m/s times 300,000,000m/s=90,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Actually, not
90,000,000,000,000,000,000
but
90,000,000,000,000,000.
SI base unit is kg, not g.
Not that it makes much difference :D
 
J

junkheap

Guest
adrenalynn":34f7rhov said:
That said - we do already have prototype "food printers". But you need to carry around the basic food-goo.
Why do I get the feeling that the first use of these would be in school cafeterias and hospitals? :p
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Vattas,

You are, of course, correct. Good catch. I fear we may actually need relativistic energy–momentum relationships if we're looking for precision. But then, you're also correct that even being off 10[super]3[/super] hardly matters here, no pun intended. ;)

Junkheap - also a good point. That and at Lyon's. :)
 
N

nec208

Guest
WuZenTech":1psg6trc said:
In response to nec208:
The bioprinter for printing organs and tissues is available now. The future is here, not 100 years from now.

Check out the video for the tissue engineering robot (bioprinter):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43nkvfvBx5k

I just checked wikipedia and howstuffworks it sad but it is very horrible.I guess medical science is not hot news and shows like discovery,TLC or the news are just has bad.

You would think organ printing and tissure eginering would be hot news every where.
 
N

nec208

Guest
adrenalynn":1hucyeo8 said:
SI units. Joules, grams, meters. Yup!

I was wanting Nec to do the work so he could grasp the scale of what he was asking.

Half antimatter? I hadn't considered that.
Are you saying it would take more energy in universe just to replicate a car? And to replicate a molecule you will need a power station.

So the problem is it takes alot of enery than what we have now.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Something like 1.2 × 10[super]20[/super] joules

Not that much. Just detonate a thousand of the largest hydrogen bombs ever tested and you might get enough energy, just need to count on 100% efficiency. ;)

Of course, a thousand of the largest hydrogen bombs is probably a little more expensive than that car. And a lot heavier...
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
Or like I stated earlier, just annihilate the equivilent amount of matter and figure out how to recombine it all into something else... surely would take some energy to rearrange everything but you would have the same amount of antimatter when done for the next replication. So who has a couple kg of antimatter I could experiment with??? You can have it back when I'm done! :lol:
 
N

nec208

Guest
Or like I stated earlier, just annihilate the equivilent amount of matter and figure out how to recombine it all into something else... surely would take some energy to rearrange everything but you would have the same amount of antimatter when done for the next replication. So who has a couple kg of antimatter I could experiment with??? You can have it back when I'm done

I don't think they are rearranging any thing but some how using high energy to turn things into matter.The problem is energy it takes alot of energy with the type of energy used today.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
"Type of energy used"... [giggle]

Mass <-> Energy _is_ fundamentally rearranging. You can neither create nor destroy either, just move it around.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Jerromy":dery3iiw said:
Or like I stated earlier, just annihilate the equivilent amount of matter and figure out how to recombine it all into something else... surely would take some energy to rearrange everything but you would have the same amount of antimatter when done for the next replication. So who has a couple kg of antimatter I could experiment with??? You can have it back when I'm done! :lol:
ilation

First, after annihilation, there's no antimatter left. See annihilate :)

Second, all the antimatter we've ever created is a few picogograms at best, and we can't store it (much less move it to where we want) without tons of machinery, and almost unlimted energy, which kind of defeats the purpose....
 
M

molecsur

Guest
I like Star Trek. I'm not a trekkie or trekker but I've enjoyed all the series and movies, some more than others.

As a fan and mass consumer of classic Science Fiction (the written word more than TV and movies) I always thought that the replicator and transporter were HUGE mistakes on the part of the writers.

The only reason they did the transporter was to save production costs. TOS was done on a ridiculously small budget. Many people forget it was by Desilu productions. They had a teeny-tiny budget and being able to beam characters around saved a lot of money. They would send Jim Rugg, the prop master, down to the local five-and-dime to buy salt and pepper shakers and have DeForest Kelley use one as a medical device. They would do special effects by scratching or over-exposing film.

Also, please realize that classic SF was NEVER EVER EVER about predicting the future. Mass media planted that idea in everybody's head and it just was never true, at least until a whole generation grew up thinking it was true. Science Fiction was ALWAYS about exploring the human condition in alternate realities.

The transporter was a terrible idea in terms of good science fiction because if you can do that, you are GOD!! There is nothing you couldn't do if you had access to the physics making it possible. It would be a whole ship and fleet of Q's (De Lancie's character in TNG).

Once they did the transporter, it was a small step to the replicator. Much better would have been less god-like technologies to synthesize food matter from other matter.

So to answer your question: No. Never. And I rarely say never.
 
N

nec208

Guest
The transporter was a terrible idea in terms of good science fiction because if you can do that, you are GOD!! There is nothing you couldn't do if you had access to the physics making it possible. It would be a whole ship and fleet of Q's (De Lancie's character in TNG).
I don't understand explain why there is nothing you could do if you had that?

Once they did the transporter, it was a small step to the replicator. Much better would have been less god-like technologies to synthesize food matter from other matter.
What is wrong with synthesize food ?
 
M

molecsur

Guest
The transporter was a terrible idea in terms of good science fiction because if you can do that, you are GOD!! There is nothing you couldn't do if you had access to the physics making it possible. It would be a whole ship and fleet of Q's (De Lancie's character in TNG).
I don't understand explain why there is nothing you could do if you had that?

Once they did the transporter, it was a small step to the replicator. Much better would have been less god-like technologies to synthesize food matter from other matter.
What is wrong with synthesize food ?
There is nothing you could not do.

You would have complete control over matter and energy from the quantum level (Heisenberg compensators, hehehe) on up. This is equivalent to complete control of anything and everything because all of reality is composed of matter and energy.

Anything you can imagine could be done, I could write techno-babble to use transporter theory/technology to do it. Just dump the data into the pattern buffers and create matter/energy constructs of any kind any where and any when you want. Complete control of reality, limited only by your commitment to the scale of implementation of the technology.

You already saw a demonstration of the energy requirements if the transporter is based on E = mc^2. But since good old NCC-1701 had no where near that much energy, it was done some other way, which has never really been explained. This also means that your control over energy includes creating it from nothing.

As far as the limitations introduced in various episodes, that was all damage control in terms of not admitting that the tech would let you do anything.

Nothing wrong with food synthesis tech. Good science fiction there. But the way they did it was by using basically the same thing as transporter technology. I'm saying there are other ways to do it that would be much more plausible.
 
N

nec208

Guest
You would have complete control over matter and energy from the quantum level (Heisenberg compensators, hehehe) on up. This is equivalent to complete control of anything and everything because all of reality is composed of matter and energy.

If I understood you could not transport a ship or fleet of ships.It was for transporting people or small vessel only.And there was flaws in the show has real transporter would have to copy you into data and send that data to a device that will assemble it but it be copy.So you will need one device that copy you and turns that into data and other device that assemble it but it be a copy.Other way is a device that disassemble you and send not data but atoms and than a device that assemble you.



And you could not transport any thing with out the device that copy you or disassemble you and other device that assemble you.Now to trasport a city is other thing!!!


Other big flaw on the show is the big monsters starship Enterprise-D it like a massive cruise ship.Well the problem is we cannot even build less than 0.5% of that size !!! It is beyond possible with todays technology even cutting edge technology.Even the crazist theoretical physics out there do not talk about it! there no frame work even in the theory !!It seems to vialate all laws of physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts