Suppose replicators were created.

[CJ Master]

Star Trek ones, not Stargate, silly! :P

http://www.computerweekly.com/PhotoGalleries/235735/974_20_Replicator-Star-Trek-weapons-and-gadgets.jpg

Suppose someone made one of these inventions, and gave it to everyone for free. (Through the process of using a large replicator to make smaller ones.) What do you suppose will happen? Will society collapse, wars start, ect, or will it be the best thing that has ever happened in Man's history?

[boriskarloffinablender]

Star Trek ones, not Stargate, silly! :P

http://www.computerweekly.com/PhotoGalleries/235735/974_20_Replicator-Star-Trek-weapons-and-gadgets.jpg

Suppose someone made one of these inventions, and gave it to everyone for free. (Through the process of using a large replicator to make smaller ones.) What do you suppose will happen? Will society collapse, wars start, ect, or will it be the best thing that has ever happened in Man's history?

america would sink.

[lykwydchykyn]

The real question is how you'd generate the enormous amount of energy required to power replicators for the entire population of the planet. I'm no physicist, but according to Einstein 1 kg of matter = about 9 x 10^16 joules of energy. On top of that you'd have to power a mind-blowingly powerful computer to store information on any number of objects down to the sub atomic level, as well as the energy required to contain and manipulate the energy that would become matter.

In short, one such replicator would require insane amounts of energy to operate. Billions of replicators, even if we only used them to provide three modest meals per day, would probably require more energy than we can generate on this planet.

You can't get around the conservation of energy. And if you could, it would probably be very bad for us all.

[CJ Master]

Zero Point Modules.

Oshnap.

[kevin11951]

Zero Point Modules.

Oshnap.

Like from SGA?

[blueshiftoverwatch]

The real question is how you'd generate the enormous amount of energy required to power replicators for the entire population of the planet.
Maybe someone could create just one replicator to start out with and use it to replicate mini fission reactors and the uranium necessary to power them.

[boriskarloffinablender]

SPAC. self powered atomic conversion/converter.

[kyuubi777]

Maybe someone could create just one replicator to start out with and use it to replicate mini fission reactors and the uranium necessary to power them.

why not fusion reactors ... then we'd have a bunch of party balloons afterwards and no nuke waste! :D

[CJ Master]

Like from SGA?

Yes. :P

[kevin11951]

Yes. :P

Hm... A mini universe in a bottle. A physicist dream! Imagine the experiments that could be had, not the mention the fact that if you even look at it wrong, an ancient alien terminal tells a Canadian scientist everything he needs to know! (Now, where are we going to get a Canadian scientist?) ;)

[Icehuck]

The real question is how you'd generate the enormous amount of energy required to power replicators for the entire population of the planet. I'm no physicist, but according to Einstein 1 kg of matter = about 9 x 10^16 joules of energy. On top of that you'd have to power a mind-blowingly powerful computer to store information on any number of objects down to the sub atomic level, as well as the energy required to contain and manipulate the energy that would become matter.

In short, one such replicator would require insane amounts of energy to operate. Billions of replicators, even if we only used them to provide three modest meals per day, would probably require more energy than we can generate on this planet.

You can't get around the conservation of energy. And if you could, it would probably be very bad for us all.

This stuff is from the future where the rules as you know them don't apply.

[kyuubi777]

that's the most idiotic statement i've ever heard... so in the future, the cardinal rule of physics and chemistry will not be applicable... i am of course talking about the "matter can neither be created nor destroyed (by conventional means)" rule
unless you want everybody walking around with miniature black holes strapped to their belts

[JBAlaska]

I think what icehuck meant was...Einstein was a smart dude, but he prolly diden't know everything there is to know. Cause if he was 100% right it will be a very slow future.

[azkehmm]

unless you want everybody walking around with miniature black holes strapped to their belts

this would be so incredibly awesome on so many levels.

[JBAlaska]

this would be so incredibly awesome on so many levels.

Well yea, except that you would be on the event horizon of your mini black hole and the time dilation thingy would be a bit of a problem.:D

[xir_]

why not fusion reactors ... then we'd have a bunch of party balloons afterwards and no nuke waste! :D

each kilo of matter would require thousands(millions?) of tonnes of u235. The mass defect in fission (or fusion) could never lead to the required energy production for matter synthesis.

Even the fusion ball we call the sun doesn't produce mattter, just reorganises it.

Additionally the replicator would destroy whoever used it an most likely the entire planet with it, as pair wise production would lead to equal amount of antimatter, which is bad.


Now food synthesisers, derived from protein resquencers are possible.

[Primefalcon]

Actually (trying not to sound too geeky here), the star trek replicators didn't make stuff from just energy, they had storage tanks of proto matter type gunk, and when they were finished say eating a replicated meal, they put the plates and stuff bank in the replicators to be turned back into that proto gunk. Sp all they are doing is turning one type of matter into another, which would theoretically be possible

Have to admit when I first read the title stargates reps jumped to my mind as well

[xir_]

Actually (trying not to sound too geeky here), the star trek replicators didn't make stuff from just energy, they had storage tanks of proto matter type gunk, and when they were finished say eating a replicated meal, they put the plates and stuff bank in the replicators to be turned back into that proto gunk. Sp all they are doing is turning one type of matter into another, which would theoretically be possible

Have to admit when I first read the title stargates reps jumped to my mind as well

My understanding is that it was an extension of the transporter technology. I.e in the TNG episode were the ship became sentient.

[Primefalcon]

My understanding is that it was an extension of the transporter technology. I.e in the TNG episode were the ship became sentient.
It is supposed to be an extension of transporter technology

trans transformed to energy then transmit that energy and turn that energy back into matter, and replicators use part of that technology to transform matter.

In either case, technology based around that would be possible (way way into the future), transporters themselves I'm not so sure about, and to be honest I wouldn't trust a transporter anyhow......

being obliterated and then turned into energy and put back together... Would you be the same person or just someone with the same memories and everything as you who thinks they're you.... Crazy, actually reminds me of an outer limits ep

[xir_]

It is supposed to be an extension of transporter technology

trans transformed to energy then transmit that energy and turn that energy back into matter, and replicators use part of that technology to transform matter.

In either case, technology based around that would be possible (way way into the future), transporters themselves I'm not so sure about, and to be honest I wouldn't trust a transporter anyhow......

being obliterated and then turned into energy and put back together... Would you be the same person or just someone with the same memories and everything as you who thinks they're you.... Crazy, actually reminds me of an outer limits ep


have to admit you haven't convinced my geek bones. I don't recall anything about protomatter in the replicator. Note do i remember ever seeing something in the blueprints of ENT D (yes i know).

For instance they said in ep 1 of voyager that the replicator can create water out of "thin air"

[cascade9]

The real question is how you'd generate the enormous amount of energy required to power replicators for the entire population of the planet. I'm no physicist, but according to Einstein 1 kg of matter = about 9 x 10^16 joules of energy. On top of that you'd have to power a mind-blowingly powerful computer to store information on any number of objects down to the sub atomic level, as well as the energy required to contain and manipulate the energy that would become matter.

In short, one such replicator would require insane amounts of energy to operate. Billions of replicators, even if we only used them to provide three modest meals per day, would probably require more energy than we can generate on this planet.

You can't get around the conservation of energy. And if you could, it would probably be very bad for us all.

Yep.

But this is the star trek universe, right?

So, maybe they are getting around the 'conservation of energy' by converting, heh, 'waste products' into new stuff. (or into 'proto matter type gunk' then into new stuff) Dont forget, enterprise doesn't have a _single_ toilet on the whole ship.

Brings a whole new meaning to the term '2 to beam out' :twisted:

[Primefalcon]

It was in the official star trek fact files

[jwbrase]

The real question is how you'd generate the enormous amount of energy required to power replicators for the entire population of the planet. I'm no physicist, but according to Einstein 1 kg of matter = about 9 x 10^16 joules of energy. On top of that you'd have to power a mind-blowingly powerful computer to store information on any number of objects down to the sub atomic level, as well as the energy required to contain and manipulate the energy that would become matter.

In short, one such replicator would require insane amounts of energy to operate. Billions of replicators, even if we only used them to provide three modest meals per day, would probably require more energy than we can generate on this planet.

You can't get around the conservation of energy. And if you could, it would probably be very bad for us all.

If you have the technology to build replicators (energy into arbitrary matter), you probably have the technology to easily turn matter into energy.

At that point, your economy basically becomes based on energy, information, and the second law of thermodynamics.

[Patrick Snyder]

If you have the technology to build replicators (energy into arbitrary matter), you probably have the technology to easily turn matter into energy.
We do that now.

Burning fuel turns matter into energy. Metabolizing food does the same for living things. Turning matter into energy is not hard because there's SO MUCH energy inside matter.

Matter is really just another form of energy. That's one of the things Einstein figured out through geometry and known physics, and one of the reasons we like him so much <3. The entire universe is just different forms of energy. That's what e = mc2 really means.

Since there's so much energy in what we call matter, converting energy into matter is much harder then the other way around. That's what particle accelerators do. They put massive amounts of energy into a tiny particle speeding it around a tube until they let it crash into another particle. This releases huge amounts of energy to form tiny matter particles (many of which decay quickly back into energy). What's really cool on a galactic scale, is that there's evidence that black holes work like particle accelerators, spewing newly formed particles out of the top and bottom.

This huge amount of energy is needed to create subatomic sized particles. This leads to some of the difficulties in future replicator technology that people were pointing out.

[earthpigg]

In short, one such replicator would require insane amounts of energy to operate.

use it initially to 'replicate' either parts to assemble a nuclear reactor, or solar panels or [pick your energy source].

it'll start slow, but eventually become exponential.


and since we are detailing objects down to the atomic and subatomic level, let's start making solar powered nanomachines that self-replicate and feed energy back to the replicators. make them out of and indiscriminately consume carbon if you want armageddon as they 'gather' materials needed to make baby nanomachines.

edit: and i hate to say it, but DRM would be pretty essential to these replicators not either destroying society or letting humanity kill itself off.

[jwbrase]

We do that now.

Burning fuel turns matter into energy. Metabolizing food does the same for living things. Turning matter into energy is not hard because there's SO MUCH energy inside matter.

Yes, but at the moment we do not have any method of turning large amounts of matter completely into energy, which is what you'd probably have if you had a replicator.

[jwbrase]

use it initially to 'replicate' either parts to assemble a nuclear reactor

Wouldn't help. All the energy that could be gotten out of the nuclear reactor would have to be put into the replicator first to create the fuel, and then some.


, or solar panels or [pick your energy source].

This, on the other hand, would work, because the energy source for solar panels is the sun, not something internal to the panels. You'd want to move them as close to the sun as you could, and make them as light per unit area as possible. Even at the surface of the sun, they'd only produce 700 (nanograms/m^2)/s. From what I can find, solar panels seem to be about 10 kg /m^2, which would make your doubling time really, really slow.

[Primefalcon]

if we had this level of technology we'd probably be able to use antimatter anyhow or even some sort of cosmic drive or whatever...... this sort of technology is probably a thousound years away or more.

[MasterNetra]

The first replicator units wouldn't forge atoms out of energy, that would be down the line but rather re-arrange stored raw materials, perhaps even breaking heavy element(s) down to more smaller ones in order to create objects. It would be a industrial thing at first sense food would be extraordinarily difficult to produce in such a fashion giving the complex construction of organics. We will most likely see it in producing metal objects, glass, and maybe plastics. The first replicator will probably use a single resource such as maybe iron to produce something of pure iron.


if we had this level of technology we'd probably be able to use antimatter anyhow or even some sort of cosmic drive or whatever...... this sort of technology is probably a thousound years away or more.

A primitive version like I described above could be decades away. The pure energy one would probably be a century or two. With the development of electronic computers and technological development has been sky-rocketing and continues to grow at a exponential rate.

[wmcbrine]

If we put aside the details of the way they do it in Star Trek, this technology is not a thousand years away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fabricator).

To answer the OP's questions: Yes, it would disrupt the old-style economy. But yes, it would be the best thing ever. :)

There would still be three basic commodities in a new, replicator-based economy: raw materials (because no, we're not doing energy -> matter conversion), energy, and information (including new templates for the replicators). So it's not quite "everything for free". But we may hope for a post-scarcity economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity).

[MasterNetra]

If we put aside the details of the way they do it in Star Trek, this technology is not a thousand years away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fabricator).

To answer the OP's questions: Yes, it would disrupt the old-style economy. But yes, it would be the best thing ever. :)

There would still be three basic commodities in a new, replicator-based economy: raw materials (because no, we're not doing energy -> matter conversion), energy, and information (including new templates for the replicators). So it's not quite "everything for free". But we may hope for a post-scarcity economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity).

Aye and aside from still using Raw Materials and employing Rep-Designers the replicators themselves will need maintaining.
The holy grail of industry would be discovering how to create matter & energy from nothing. And though the science community may say its not possible to create energy or matter, one would have to wonder where it came from? I mean even if its from another universe or outside the universe, matter and had to have been created at some point... Unless of course matter is just the fabric of space inverted? Tiny bumps (in a matter of speaking) coming together forming the stuff we see around us.

[lykwydchykyn]

My point was not to say that it's technologically impossible. Rather, I understood the original question to be essentially "What if everyone in the world had a device that would meet all their material needs."

My point is, the universe doesn't allow that. No matter what technology we develop, you can't have something for nothing. And when you start dealing with things on a scale of "everyone in the world has one", the fundamental laws of physics can't be swept under the rug.

I mean, there is a FINITE amount of chemical/nuclear engergy on the planet, and a FINITE amount of energy arriving from the sun. When you start talking about billions of people using devices like this day in and day out, you have to wonder (not that I'm going to do the math on this) if we aren't going to bump up against this ceiling.

[eriktheblu]

Dont forget, enterprise doesn't have a _single_ toilet on the whole ship
TNG episode "Imaginary Friend" shows a toilet in the crew quarters. There is at least one toilet; one must assume there are similar features throughout the rest of the ship.

... sweet Zombie Jesus I am a nerd.

Such devices (replicators) would have to be programmed for each item produced. Massive programming would be required to reproduce any product. The programming requirements could be eased by the use of scanning devices, but these devices would probably be very expensive, and possibly legislatively restricted due to the potential for patent infringement.

As a result of such restrictions, digital product specifications would be expensive and probably not widely available. More likely, the devices will be used almost exclusively in manufacturing, and consumer products will still be delivered the old fashion way.

If the idea catches on, production and delivery of raw materials would be reduced to simply the production of energy. Existing power grids would need to be completely revamped to meet the demands.

Traditional power sources would be wholly inadequate to support this type of production. The technology would have to be reversed in order to turn waste matter into energy.

Consumer waste is the obvious fuel for the energy conversion, but considering the laws of conservation of energy, the recycled matter would provide less energy than it took to produce. The obvious example is food products. Food we consume is converted to energy in our bodies; so the resulting waste could not possibly contain the same amount of energy as we took in.

Beyond contemporary consumer waste, we would certainly be motivated to use hazardous materials currently in storage, as well as inherited waste occupying landfills.

Dense materials such as lead gold, and uranium would require greater quantities of power to replicate. Many minerals would still be mined as an economical consideration. Titanium will probably see more application with it's low mass, high functionality, and the majority of the cost being in the processing.

Many environmental hazards currently part of the human condition could be eliminated. With efficient mass to energy conversion, we could store energy as harmless gold pellets instead of volatile fuels, or potentially dangerous chemical batteries. Giant chemical storage tanks would become obsolete when a finished product is produced from a single raw "material" (energy). Agricultural land could be allowed to revert to wilderness, or otherwise repurposed. Natural water sources needn't be overburdened when drinking water can be produced from energy. Transportation related pollution is reduced when raw materials are no longer transported.

No energy transfer is 100% efficient. Energy is always lost and typically ends up as heat. Depending on the efficiency of the devices, heat may become our most significant environmental issue.

Assuming we could get this all working properly, the need agriculture, and manufacturing employment would be significantly reduced. We could soon find a large surplus workforce. With a gradual transition, this could theoretically free up countless workhours to be devoted to the arts or research. History however shows obsolete workers typically do not adapt quickly enough to the changing economy. A likely result is significant social problems.

While a single production resource (energy) would greatly improve efficiency, it would also create a widespread single resource dependency. Should the power grids fail, it would immediately result in failure of food chains and other essential services.

[MasterNetra]

My point was not to say that it's technologically impossible. Rather, I understood the original question to be essentially "What if everyone in the world had a device that would meet all their material needs."

My point is, the universe doesn't allow that. No matter what technology we develop, you can't have something for nothing. And when you start dealing with things on a scale of "everyone in the world has one", the fundamental laws of physics can't be swept under the rug.

I mean, there is a FINITE amount of chemical/nuclear engergy on the planet, and a FINITE amount of energy arriving from the sun. When you start talking about billions of people using devices like this day in and day out, you have to wonder (not that I'm going to do the math on this) if we aren't going to bump up against this ceiling.

But yet there must exist conditions in which creation is possible. We need only to figure out what these conditions are and how to safely replicate them. Granted will we come up with a way to create matter and energy from the void in the next couple of decades, though always possible, not likely.

[lykwydchykyn]

But yet there must exist conditions in which creation is possible. We need only to figure out what these conditions are and how to safely replicate them. Granted will we come up with a way to create matter and energy from the void in the next couple of decades, though always possible, not likely.

You realize that if we DID come up with a way to create matter and energy from nothing, it would make nuclear weapons look like pop guns and fossil-fuel burning like mother nature's best friend.

[doas777]

Like from SGA?


umm no. check the ds9 tech manual. specifically the section on quantum torpedos.

[MasterNetra]

You realize that if we DID come up with a way to create matter and energy from nothing, it would make nuclear weapons look like pop guns and fossil-fuel burning like mother nature's best friend.

Not necessarily the process itself may not be that dangerous. At this time though we really cannot say because we have no clue as to how matter and energy creation occurs. There may very well be a method of inducing it that poses no threat and frankly not sure how pollution would occur from it anyway. And besides when we do discover how. We could use the technology to replenish the resources in which we have taken from the planet and restore it to its former glory. Addtionally perhaps when we come up with either a efficient and effective means of artificially producing gravity or we modify ourselves for life and reproduction in a weightless environment, then we could use our matter/energy creating tech to produce our own environments in space. Like a artificial world of our own...may not be the size of a actual planet but meh.

[cascade9]

TNG episode "Imaginary Friend" shows a toilet in the crew quarters. There is at least one toilet; one must assume there are similar features throughout the rest of the ship.

... sweet Zombie Jesus I am a nerd.

Heh, I havent seen that episode. I do know that there weren't any on the published plans in trekkie books (I cant recall if that was 'original' star trek only, or next gen as well).

There are also no toilets on the klingon battlecruisers IIRC.

[kyuubi777]

this is a stupid discussion... there will never ever ever be a way to make matter in the way you are talking about (making it from nothing) .. and to rearrange atoms in complex models would require a ****load of energy and an impossible amount of processing power from a load of cpu's ... if you combined all the computing and supercomputing capabilities in the world today you would not be able to change a body panel from a car into a boules ball.

this process is very similar to the one portrayed in Timeline .... although, in the book, matter was just being taken apart and put back together in the same conformation

to change an object you'd need the correct amount of material for the finished product,.. you'd need to store the phyisical position of each atom and it's properties in a computer.. an then the porperties and location of each atom where it should be in the final conformation...

It will never ever ever happen

[MasterNetra]

this is a stupid discussion... there will never ever ever be a way to make matter in the way you are talking about (making it from nothing) .. and to rearrange atoms in complex models would require a ****load of energy and an impossible amount of processing power from a load of cpu's ... if you combined all the computing and supercomputing capabilities in the world today you would not be able to change a body panel from a car into a boules ball.

this process is very similar to the one portrayed in Timeline .... although, in the book, matter was just being taken apart and put back together in the same conformation

to change an object you'd need the correct amount of material for the finished product,.. you'd need to store the phyisical position of each atom and it's properties in a computer.. an then the porperties and location of each atom where it should be in the final conformation...

It will never ever ever happen

That what they said about flying before the invention of the airplane. Time and time again the nay sayers are proven wrong.

[Icehuck]

That what they said about flying before the invention of the airplane. Time and time again the nay sayers are proven wrong.

The world used to be flat. The sun used to revolve around the Earth. Hollywood used to make good movies. All were proven false.

[lykwydchykyn]

Not necessarily the process itself may not be that dangerous. At this time though we really cannot say because we have no clue as to how matter and energy creation occurs. There may very well be a method of inducing it that poses no threat and frankly not sure how pollution would occur from it anyway. And besides when we do discover how. We could use the technology to replenish the resources in which we have taken from the planet and restore it to its former glory. Addtionally perhaps when we come up with either a efficient and effective means of artificially producing gravity or we modify ourselves for life and reproduction in a weightless environment, then we could use our matter/energy creating tech to produce our own environments in space. Like a artificial world of our own...may not be the size of a actual planet but meh.

You misunderstand; I'm not even considering the side-effects of the technology. I'm talking about the capabilities such technology gives us.

Let's assume the technology is clean and green with no dangerous side effects. I can create matter and energy from the void at will.

What prevents:
- Some psychopath from creating a small star, destroying the earth.
- The same from creating poisonous gasses or liquids in mass quanitities
- People from creating so much mass (3 meals a day, a house, new car every year, clothes, etc for billions of people) the earth's gravity skyrockets and crushes us.

That's just 3 off the top of my head.

[kyuubi777]

all those inventions listed (airplanes for example) conform to the laws of physics ... the one at hand ignores them completely

[Icehuck]

all those inventions listed (airplanes for example) conform to the laws of physics ... the one at hand ignores them completely

How do you know that those laws are absolute? Could it be we just don't have the technology to change those laws?

We can't create matter out of nothing. Yet, how did the universe get there in the first place? Big bang? What created that matter that went boom?

[doas777]

all those inventions listed (airplanes for example) conform to the laws of physics ... the one at hand ignores them completely

prior to bernoulli, they didn't. before Einstein, your arguments might have made sense, but now...
if e =MC^2, then M = e/(C^2)
the first law of thermodynamics is preserved.

[phrostbyte]

My point was not to say that it's technologically impossible. Rather, I understood the original question to be essentially "What if everyone in the world had a device that would meet all their material needs."

My point is, the universe doesn't allow that. No matter what technology we develop, you can't have something for nothing. And when you start dealing with things on a scale of "everyone in the world has one", the fundamental laws of physics can't be swept under the rug.

I mean, there is a FINITE amount of chemical/nuclear engergy on the planet, and a FINITE amount of energy arriving from the sun. When you start talking about billions of people using devices like this day in and day out, you have to wonder (not that I'm going to do the math on this) if we aren't going to bump up against this ceiling.

Well if it's not possible in this reality, we can simply replace this reality with a man-made reality.

I have this video game where I can teleport anywhere instantly and replicate anything. So it's possible even within our current physics framework, it's just we would make the video game reality, ie. virtual reality.

[lykwydchykyn]

Well if it's not possible in this reality, we can simply replace this reality with a man-made reality.

I have this video game where I can teleport anywhere instantly and replicate anything. So it's possible even within our current physics framework, it's just we would make the video game reality, ie. virtual reality.

How's that virtual food taste? Not very filling, eh?

[phrostbyte]

this is a stupid discussion... there will never ever ever be a way to make matter in the way you are talking about (making it from nothing) .. and to rearrange atoms in complex models would require a ****load of energy and an impossible amount of processing power from a load of cpu's ... if you combined all the computing and supercomputing capabilities in the world today you would not be able to change a body panel from a car into a boules ball.

this process is very similar to the one portrayed in Timeline .... although, in the book, matter was just being taken apart and put back together in the same conformation

to change an object you'd need the correct amount of material for the finished product,.. you'd need to store the phyisical position of each atom and it's properties in a computer.. an then the porperties and location of each atom where it should be in the final conformation...

It will never ever ever happen

Scientists are already doing stuff you are stating are impossible. :) Read up on "nanotechnology".

[phrostbyte]

How's that virtual food taste? Not very filling, eh?

You can probably make a virtual steak taste infinitely better then a real steak. :)

[kyuubi777]

How do you know that those laws are absolute? Could it be we just don't have the technology to change those laws?

We can't create matter out of nothing. Yet, how did the universe get there in the first place? Big bang? What created that matter that went boom?

you can't change the interactions between O2 and N2 and O3 in a gaseous form

and the prospect of "where did matter come from is irrelevant.. we will never know for sure about the beginnings of the universe...
string theory teaches us that there might be matter planes upon which universes exist and that when two collide, the immense energy shot through the system results in a big bang type reaction

i have my own theory that dimensionality is proportional to scale... that is, if we were to grow to a point where we could examine a whole bunch of universes from afar (if there are multi-verses) we would see matter in the way we do at our level.. and if we were able to immensely slow time down and study a single atom on a visual scale (some derivative of visualization using the proper wavelengths that would protrude from matter at that level (all matter emits a frequency) we might find structures and possibly even lifeforms

[MasterNetra]

all those inventions listed (airplanes for example) conform to the laws of physics ... the one at hand ignores them completely

The so called "laws of physic" was written by man based upon observation, testing, and theory and are subject to change based on new data. The notion that Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is merely theoretical not concrete. Just because we have yet to figure out how its done doesn't mean it cannot be done.

[doas777]

You can probably make a virtual steak taste infinitely better then a real steak. :)
wow. i'm torn. your statement seems outright blasphemous on the face, but you have a point, perhaps a replicator can make a bigger porterhouse than nature. interesting moral dilemma.

cheers

[MasterNetra]

wow. i'm torn. your statement seems outright blasphemous on the face, but you have a point, perhaps a replicator can make a bigger porterhouse than nature. interesting moral dilemma.

cheers

Hmm well producing steak via replicator should keep the Animal activists happy sense no animals are being slaughter.

Now virtual beer would probably be a failure. Can't get drunk on it. :/ But beer from a replicator...hmm guess depends on molecular blueprint.

[doas777]

lol virtual beer would probably be a failure. Can't get drunk on it. :/ But beer from a replicator...hmm guess depends on molecular blueprint.
indeed. you need to get some sorian brandy or romulan ale, or bloodwine. ask Guinan, and she'll hook ya up.

[MasterNetra]

indeed. you need to get some sorian brandy or romulan ale, or bloodwine. ask Guinan, and she'll hook ya up.

Hook me up to what? I already got shocked today. Addictive though. :p

[CJ Master]

Hmm well producing steak via replicator should keep the Animal activists happy sense no animals are being slaughter.

Now virtual beer would probably be a failure. Can't get drunk on it. :/ But beer from a replicator...hmm guess depends on molecular blueprint.

I would assume Ethanol would be in it as well...?

[MasterNetra]

I would assume Ethanol would be in it as well...?

Who drinks Ethanol? You crazy! :p

[cammin]

Now virtual beer would probably be a failure. Can't get drunk on it.

That's the easy part.

[xir_]

Scientists are already doing stuff you are stating are impossible. :) Read up on "nanotechnology".

god i'm sick of that term, it really has no meaning. Even in my departments nanotechnology section the first thing they tell you is that its a buzz word with no content. nanotechnology = chemistry + hype

[RabbitWho]

Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding about how the replicators on star trek work..

They're not making food out of nothing, it's only advantage is that it's faster and you've more choice, you don't have to cook, etc. But it couldn't be used to feed the poor/people that can't afford it because it takes the same amount of energy and matter to make other matter as it does right now, replicators would be a huge energy drain on the world and extremely expensive. That's why they have replicator rations on Voyager and why when they run out everyone has to go to neelix who prepares food in the more renewable and natural way.

"energy cannot be created or destroyed just transferred from one form to another" That's what the replicater does.

[xir_]

Talk about a fundamental lack of understanding about how the replicators on star trek work..

They're not making food out of nothing, it's only advantage is that it's faster and you've more choice, you don't have to cook, etc. But it couldn't be used to feed the poor/people that can't afford it because it takes the same amount of energy and matter to make other matter as it does right now, replicators would be a huge energy drain on the world and extremely expensive. That's why they have replicator rations on Voyager and why when they run out everyone has to go to neelix who prepares food in the more renewable and natural way.

"energy cannot be created or destroyed just transferred from one form to another" That's what the replicater does.

I don't think you understand the content of the thread. this has been discussed at length. The argument is more about if its actual matter creation or just matter reorganisation.

[handy]

I read a book "The Field" about quantum physics. It related that one of the long time quantum science legends (who these days NASA consultants when required) is trying to find a way to access the energy that is all around us.

He said that in one cubic yard/meter of space/atmosphere, there is enough energy to boil all of the oceans on Earth dry!

His goal is to uncover the way to access this energy before he dies.

I wish him all the best... :)

(Sorry I can't remember his name, or the scientific details, if your interested, Lynne McTaggart wrote the book.)

[CJ Master]

Bumping this for hopefully more discussion.

[MasterNetra]

I'd just like to re-establish the notion that just because we haven't figured out the conditions required to create energy/matter doesn't mean it can't be done period. We simply just haven't much of a clue as to how to go about doing it. Thats all.

[soni1770]

umm conservation of energy anyone?


e=mc^2



but i guess the field is about zero point energy,

which could be behind the big rip
your body flung apart.

yips:popcorn:

[Marvin666]

Instead of turning energy into matter, how about fueling this thing with matter? Just put in some form of matter as a raw material, and a small sample of what you want (only a ram type memory).

[CJ Master]

but i guess the field is about zero point energy,

Eh?

[RabbitWho]

I read a book "The Field" about quantum physics. It related that one of the long time quantum science legends (who these days NASA consultants when required) is trying to find a way to access the energy that is all around us.

He said that in one cubic yard/meter of space/atmosphere, there is enough energy to boil all of the oceans on Earth dry!

His goal is to uncover the way to access this energy before he dies.

I wish him all the best... :)

(Sorry I can't remember his name, or the scientific details, if your interested, Lynne McTaggart wrote the book.)

I like the play they made of it, not really true to the book, but good in it's own right

[Mornedhel]

Cory Doctorow's open source (*) novel "Makers" describes a 30-minutes-in-the-future society where, at some point, the main characters invent a kind of 3D printer that can print anything with no movable parts (you can assemble parts later to make things with movable parts, of course, so printers are being used to print parts for printers). Unlike the current 3D printers, those are actually useful.

All sorts of unhappy consequences follow.

It's an interesting read.

(*) Yes, open source. This being Doctorow we're talking about, the contents are cc-by-nc-sa, so go ahead and download (http://craphound.com/makers/download/) it.

[chessnerd]

What do you suppose will happen? Will society collapse, wars start, ect, or will it be the best thing that has ever happened in Man's history?

It would be the best thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind. All needs would be gone. No more hunger, thirst, or anything like that ever again. Sure, most manufacturing jobs would end overnight, but then again, you no longer need to work because you have everything you need.

Other than greedy people being upset about not being able to make money anymore there really is no downside.

(This assumes that mankind has the energy required to run all of these replicators, of course.)

[LowSky]

I always though Star Trek food replicators would work on turning raw matter into wanted food, for example you could store hydrogen and carbon and maybe other elements in raw form, saving untold amounts of space, and a replicator would in a sense draw the item requested using the raw material, like a 3D printer.

I bet in a few thousand years anything we have now or can even dream up will seem primative to future generations.

[audiomick]

Suppose someone made one of these inventions, and gave it to everyone for free. (Through the process of using a large replicator to make smaller ones.) What do you suppose will happen? Will society collapse, wars start, ect, or will it be the best thing that has ever happened in Man's history?

And we will assume that it is possible, although the discussion about the possibility has been interesting and valid. And we will assume that the energy is available, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to give one to every one for free.


I read a book once, called "the Midas Touch" I think. where the basis was that someone had invented a way to create practically free energy. The gist of it was that in order to maintain the economic system, people had to consume more and more, because production became so cheap that goods became so cheap that much more had to be consumed to keep the system alive. In the end, only really rich people could afford to live simply, until someone had the idea of using robots to do his consuming for him.

I think that the existence of a "replicator" would, along similar lines to that book, have a catastrophic effect on the world's economic system.

Basic economic theory seems to state that the only healthy economy is one that grows. Apart from the fact that this theory suffers from the basic flaw that the world is finite, so the system is bound to break down eventually, if every one had a device that could produce everything they need, the system would grind to a halt overnight.

Of course, if every one has everything they need, there is no more purpose in the current economic system.

It would be nice to think that this would be allowed to happen; I doubt if it would. At the very least, the current system would be replaced with another system allowing powerful people to maintain their advantage over others.

That all sounds a bit pessimistic, I know, but I fear that people are such that this would be the case. There are enough documented cases of people continuing with practices that they know are destructive in order to maintain their own advantage.

[lykwydchykyn]

A few observations:

- As it concerns disrupting our current economic system, I think it's safe to say that a small, cheap, universally available source of vast amounts of energy is far more important than replicator technology of any sort. If everyone has a virtually unlimited source of energy then getting what you need (or want!) becomes a question of how rather than if -- with or without replicators.

- As it concerns human beings and our society, I think that comes down to the age-old philosophical division of whether you believe people are inherently evil, selfish, greedy, etc.; or whether you believe these things are caused by external circumstances, and that given the right technological/social/political/ideological systems evil can be eliminated.

[cammin]

Of course, if every one has everything they need, there is no more purpose in the current economic system.

It would be nice to think that this would be allowed to happen; I doubt if it would. At the very least, the current system would be replaced with another system allowing powerful people to maintain their advantage over others.

That all sounds a bit pessimistic, I know, but I fear that people are such that this would be the case. There are enough documented cases of people continuing with practices that they know are destructive in order to maintain their own advantage.

Non-replicated items would be valued as they'll be perceived to be better than the copies. Or they'll simply be better than the replicated items. This is shown in star

There will also be things that can't be replicated. Items that are banned from replication, or things too complicated to make copies of.

There will also be things that haven't been added to the database of items to replicate.

All three things will be the basis of the new economic structure. While everyone should have everything they need to survive, there will still be a separation of classes driven by what people want.

[phrostbyte]

If replicators were created you'd see a lot more commercials like this from obsolete corporations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBATrZcKGg

[audiomick]

- As it concerns human beings and our society, I think that comes down to the age-old philosophical division of whether you believe people are inherently evil, selfish, greedy, etc.; or whether you believe these things are caused by external circumstances

I don't think people are inherently evil. I do think that people like having power, whichever form it might take. This goes all the way down to the president of the local bingo club. It is an interesting question whether, in a society where everyone has enough, that competitiveness would wane?


...and that given the right technological/social/political/ideological systems evil can be eliminated.
I think so, but I also think the transition from now to there will be long and difficult.

[CJ Master]

If replicators were created you'd see a lot more commercials like this from obsolete corporations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBATrZcKGg

That's hilarious, is it an actual commercial or just a parody?

[phrostbyte]

That's hilarious, is it an actual commercial or just a parody?

Parody of an actual commercial by the MPAA. [Somewhat] ironically all I can find on YouTube are parodies of the original.

This one isn't a parody tho:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wssfl22Hhp4