Skip to main content

star trek - How Can Replicators Work Without Mass/Energy Conversion?


Part of what got me thinking about this was this question about whether Federation transporters use matter or energy and my answer. My answer is taken from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers' Technical Manual, Fourth Season Edition. This is sent to all writers and prospective writers (that's how I got it) as the official source of how everything technical works in Star Trek.


On the larger section on the transporter (and not the short summary), On page 28, under The Transporter - Once and for All:



... The stream of molecules read by the pads is sent to the Pattern Buffer, a large cylindrical tank surrounded by superconducting electromagnetic coils. It is here that the object to be transported is stored momentarily before actual beaming away from the ship (or even within the ship). It is the Pattern Buffer and its associated subsystems that have been improved the most in the last half-century. While the actual molecules of an object are held in a spinning magnetic suspension (eight minutes before degradation), the construction sequence of the object can be read, recorded in computer memory (in some cases), and reproduced. There are limits to the complexity of the object, however, and this is where the potential "miracle" machine still eludes.

The Transporter cannot produce working duplicate copies of living tissue or organ systems.

The reason for this is that routine transport involves handling the incredibly vast amount of information required to "disassemble" and "reassemble" a human being or other life form. To transport something, the system must scan, process, and transmit this pattern information. This is analogous to a television, which serves as a conduit to the vast amount of visual information in a normal television transmission.




And then, from the same section, on page 29:



From the Pattern Buffer, the molecular stream and the coded instructions pass through a number of subsystems before reaching the emitter. These include the Subspace, Doppler, and Heisenberg Compensators. Each works to insure that the matter stream is being transmitted or received is in the correct phase, frequency, and so on. (sic)



In short, objects are disassembled by the transporter, the molecules and data about them (like brownian motion) will all be stored and transmitted and re-assembled. This pretty much blows the whole "matter-energy scrambler" theory out of the water and says that the transporter does not change matter to energy and back again.


Yet in the same tech manual, on page 12, under Transporter (this is the shorter summary section), we have this:



Replication technology: The ability to convert matter into energy and back again implies the ability to replicate objects. This is done in the ship's food service units which instantly recreate any dish in the computer's memory.



(I am not using selective quotations or hiding anything relevant, so this is not a game I'm playing by revealing only selected information from the guide.)



The problem here is that, as described in the tech manual itself, the transporter does not convert matter to energy. It creates a stream of matter and reassembles it at the destination.


As I understand this, it would mean that the replicators could replicate material made of the same molecules of whatever is in storage. For example, if you have enough raw carbon molecules, they could be re-assembled into a diamond or graphite, but they could not be broken down through energy/matter conversion and used to make a piece of iron.


Is this (using a matter stream for transport) totally incompatible with replicator technology? Or is there a way, using the transporter technology as described, to still provide replicator technology as we've seen in Star Trek?



Answer



Replicators don't need matter-energy conversion. K. Eric Drexler's book Engines of Creation describes building up objects atom by atom using nanoscale assemblers. It isn't much of a stretch to believe that complex objects can be created this way, since our own bodies were assembled from the inside out by molecular processes driven by random events. We have crude replicators already called 3D printers, that will build up complex shapes, but the materials you can currently use are severely limited.


So there are at least two answers to your question. One way is an assembly line of atomic scale manipulators, putting together objects atom by atom. We can already manipulate single atoms directly; I seem to remember IBM researchers writing "IBM" on a surface by positioning single xenon atoms.


Another way to replicate objects is the way nature builds complex living things, i.e. using a compressed programmatic description called a genotype that when placed in the proper medium will produce a phenotype, a finished organism. Everything from birds to electric eels are all produced via this process, so there's no obvious limit as to what could be created.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...