Star Trek food replicators

[shadow735]

So I was wondering is this type of technology possible. I would think it would be possible theoretically based on the fact that if we can find a way to know the exact makeup of an item we can re-create it on the sub atomic scale. After all we convert matter to energy shouldn’t the opposite be possible?<br />But as of right now, I know we are so far away from something like this, I would imagine that you would need an immense amt of computer power to store the atomic "signature" of something to recreate it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[summoner]

You are correct on the transporters needing to be absolutely perfect, but for cost reasons I'd think the food replicators wouldn't need the same precision. Especially since they're in nearly every room on the starship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[docm]

Food replication 101: use stem cells and grow it on a production line<br /><br />http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4212533.html<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It sounds like a sci-fi nightmare: giant sheets of grayish meat grown on factory racks for human consumption. But it's for real. Using pig stem cells, scientists have been growing lab meat for years, and it could be hitting deli counters sooner than you think.<br /><br />Early attempts produced less-than-enticing results. Then, in 2001, scientists at New York's Touro College won funding from NASA to improve in vitro farming. Hoping to serve something, well, beefier than kelp on moon bases and Mars colonies, the scientists successfully grew goldfish muscle in a nutrient broth. And, in 2003, a group of hungry artists from the University of Western Australia grew kidney bean-size steaks from biopsied frogs and prenatal sheep cells. Cooked in herbs and flambéed for eight brave dinner guests, the slimy frog steaks came attached to small strips of fabric — the growth scaffolding. Half the tasters spit out their historic dinner. (Perhaps more significant, half didn't.)<br /><br />Today, scientists funded by companies such as Stegeman, a Dutch sausage giant, are fine-tuning the process. It takes just two weeks to turn pig stem cells, or myoblasts, into muscle fibers. "It's a scalable process," says Jason Matheny of New Harvest, a meat substitute research group. "It would take the same amount of time to make a kilogram or a ton of meat." One technical challenge: Muscle tissue that has never been flexed is a gooey mass, unlike the grained texture of meat from an animal that once lived. The solution is to stretch the tissue mechanically, growing cells on a scaffold that expands and contracts. This would allow factories to tone the flaccid flesh with a controlled workout.<br /><br />Lab-g</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Heinlein once mentioned a piece of cultured chicken in a novel, that had been "alive" for hundreds of years, "Mrs. 'awkins." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is never well explained if the transporters are breaking down matter into energy and beaming it to a new location, then converting it back into matter.....or if the machine is merely breaking down the structure of the object and transporting the matter, without converting it to energy, to a new location.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry. In the TOS episode <i>The Savage Curtain</i>, Kirk tells the Lincoln look-facsimile that the transporter turned him (Lincoln) into energy.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Food replicators would seem to be converting energy into matter with a defined value and physical arrangement<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />ST Canon claims that replicators turn a generic substance into the desired item, food or whatever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">ST Canon claims that replicators turn a generic substance into the desired item, food or whatever.</font><br /><br />The phrase "generic substance" would seem to suggest hydrogen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I'd say, more likely, that "generic substance" is more likely several - CNOH and several trace elements. Else you're not really "making" anything useful as food. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

There are three major problems we'd have to overcome in order to recreate a "food replicator." (Not necessarily in order of difficulty.)<br /><br />1) Computer Processing and Memory - The amount of information necessary to "create" something from energy would be huge.<br /><br />2) Power - In order to create matter from energy, you need the power of a particle accelerator. And that's just to create itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny particles of matter. Ideally, you would need to multiply this on a massive scale having billions of mini-particle accelerators. (At least using our tech knowledge.)<br /><br />3) Manipulation - If you didn't want to have a lumpy, frothy mass that "tastes like chicken" (or maybe doesn't) you'd have to be able to manipulate its components. That ain't easy. It's similar to the difficulties that quantum computing has. Particles tend to stick to things. Some sort of ultra-fine magnetic field manipulation (bad analogy but, whatever) would have to be used in order to put the building blocks together.<br /><br />I think that something based on using a common building block like "synth-food" might be doable. You take a common, nutritious substance recycled from waste, perhaps using algae, and then add flavors or use some difficult manipulation to actually "create" flavor molecules from the food and then process it for the correct texture, slap it in a mold, cure it and pop it out on a tray. That would be easier. However, it would be readily identifiable. There wouldn't be any bones in your chicken, very little variations in texture, no fat in your meat, etc. But, it could be "doable" with much less stringent technology requirements than energy-matter conversion.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">But it DOES imply that energy is converted to matter, which is why it makes the technology so improbable in such a relatively small device. </font><br /><br />and also impractical considering: m = E/c^2 the amount of energy required to "replicate" a pop tart would be staggering.

 

[Kalstang]

Actually a replicator as described above <font color="yellow">(ST Canon claims that replicators turn a generic substance into the desired item, food or whatever.)</font>would not be createing matter from energy. It would just be rearranging matter with energy. So would not use or need near the energy required to actually create matter from energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Not true. Your pop tart would start out as some sort of generic substance. That would be converted to energy and then converted back as your pop tart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Uhhh, isn't a pop-tart some kind of generic substance anyway <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>But it DOES imply that energy is converted to matter, which is why it makes the technology so improbable in such a relatively small device.</i><br /><br />ST Canon pretty much states that transport is a tunneling effect, in which all of the original molecules that make up "you" tunnel and are then reassembled at a new location.<br /><br />The point being that "you" are still made up of everything you were before transport. Conversion to energy would destroy the original "you" and a clever and accurate fake would appear at the terminus. But it would no longer be "you." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Quantum tunneling, of course. It tunnels and reappears in the new location - without actually traversing the intervening space. Pretty standard physics, actually.<br /><br />The ironic thing is, there are <i>also</i> versions that are supposed to be "Canon" that say it <i>does</i> break one down into energy. But that is a sort of death, as I'd pointed out before. The "you" at one end isn't the "you" at the other - it's been destroyed and faithfully recreated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">Not true. Your pop tart would start out as some sort of generic substance. That would be converted to energy and then converted back as your pop tart. </font><br /><br />sorry but that's not what was said. I was replying to the comment that ENERGY was converted to matter. OBVIOUSLY it wouldn't apply if matter was converted to energy and then back into matter. the net energy loss would be small.

 

[willpittenger]

So? As noted, it would <font color="yellow">start out</font>as the generic substance and <font color="yellow">become</font>the pop tart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

BTW: According to the TNG Technical Manual, the transporter doesn't move matter through the ship itself except for beaming to or from somewhere inside the ship. There are supposed to be antennas on the hull. There are also conduits for moving that generic substance to and from (recycling) the replicators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">So? As noted, it would start out as the generic substance and become the pop tart. </font><br /><br />So? Mr. smartass. below is the comment I was referring to. absolutely NO mention of it "starting out" as a generic substance.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Food replicators would seem to be converting energy into matter with a defined value and physical arrangement</font><br /><br />and BTW: it is all science FICTION. it doesn't really have to make sense or be perfectly logical, now does it?

 

[yevaud]

Besides, the technology and/or science of B5 was frequently spot on anyways. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[ashish27]

..... *yawn*, i feel tired,<br /><br />"Computer Coffee, Black..."

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So? As noted, it would start out as the generic substance and become the pop tart.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>So? Mr. smartass. below is the comment I was referring to. absolutely NO mention of it "starting out" as a generic substance.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Don't get upset. The post you just replied to was a reply not to you, but MeteorWayne.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Food replicators would seem to be converting energy into matter with a defined value and physical arrangement<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>and BTW: it is all science FICTION. it doesn't really have to make sense or be perfectly logical, now does it?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />As I understand it, we were talking about the same type of technology in the real world. So calling it fiction doesn't help. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Part of the problem in the early days was the limited backstory. That is, the "history of the future" had yet to be written and still has yet to be written completely. (That allowed us to watch humans and Vulcans meet for the first time and the launch of the NX-01. So perhaps we are fortunate.) Also, Gene Roddenberry had yet to develop a complete vision of the Star Trek world. You will note that no TOS episodes refer to each other.<br /><br />This means that while one episode will establish what Romulans look like and what tech they have (cloaking devices), the events of the older episode are mostly ignored. By the time TNG came along, this changed. We see the Borg introduced and the second time we see them, they remember Picard. DS9 introduced the serial. The Dominion war waged on for some time. That was then perfected with ENT with entire seasons devoted to something. Events just kept rolling on from episode to episode. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<tap tap><br /><br />This thing on?<br /><br /><tap tap tap /><br /><br />Hey Scotty! Universal Translator's busted again!<br /><br /><i>"What? Captin', I'm an Engineer, not a bloody.... Oh, have it fixed in a jiffy!"</i><br /><br />And stop stealing the good doctor's lines! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

lol that was funny <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>