In a similar vein to Dinosaur's thought-provoking thread" Star Trek transporter: Possible?, I thought it would be interesting to compare people's thoughts about the possibility of a replicator.

In the Star Trek universe, a replicator a can create any inanimate matter on demand, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file. You dial the code for a banana split, for example, and the machine constructs it for you from existing matter.

In Star Trek canon, the raw material is "sub-atomic particles found throughout the Universe", but to keep things more realistic imagine that our potential replicator has access to an abundant supply of the necessary elements.

The information storage requirements would appear to be similar to those for a transporter as discussed in Dinosaur's thread.

So: Do you think that replicator technology might some day be a reality?

What I'm really interested in is whether you think that replicator technology is possible while transporter technology isn't, or vice-versa... so if you make different responses in the two polls, please explain why.

Replicator - yes.
Transporter - no.

Replicator is a fairly simple idea.
If you have all the necessary nuts, bolts and raw metal, you can build anything.
This is no different, just to a smaller scale.
It is bulding inanimate matter from building blocks.

The transporter, on the other hand, is something entirely different.
So different, in fact, that I'm not sure why you seem to lump the two together (perhaps I am misunderstanding).
It's one thing to build inanimate matter from parts, quite another to completely disassemble a living being, "beam" it somewhere many miles away, and have it reassembled at the beam location.
That's just absurd, and there is no technology that even comes close to a theory for how to manage such a feat.

The replicator doesn't build from parts - it build from atoms (or from any mass/energy at all, according to the canon).

If a machine can take a heap of atoms and put them together in the form of a roast turkey, then why not in the form of a human?

The replicator doesn't build from parts - it build from atoms.
The atoms are the parts.

If a machine can take a heap of atoms and put them together in the form of a ham sandwich, then why not in the form of a human?
Without even bothering to discuss that yet...
The replicator is self contained - in essence it is a simple machine that puts parts together according to a schematic.

A replicator is not "beaming" ham sandwiches thousand of miles away in the form of light.

How do you propose that would occur in the real world?

So: Do you think that replicator technology might some day be a reality?
for organic materials? no question about it. it's just a matter of time. i will even venture that it will involve the DNA helix as a basis of operation.

edit:
on a side note i will predict that man will someday be able to bring his thoughts to reality.

If a machine can take a heap of atoms and put them together in the form of a roast turkey, then why not in the form of a human?It could put them together in the form of a human, but not a living human. Specifically, the brain has to be recreated with all the synapses intact. This requires materializing with all the electrical activity in exactly the same state as the original. This is clearly a more challenging project than simply creating generic dead turkey flesh.

Still, perhaps some day we'll be able to do even this. The flaw in the Star Trek technology was the insistence that once you "transported" something or somebody, the original would be gone. A "destructive copying," as we would say in today's language of cybernetics. But why? You analyze the object or organism to be transported, describe it in code, transmit the code, and build a new one at the destination. Where in this process is it necessary to destroy the original?

I just sent a fax this morning. To be absolutely certain of my facts, I just double-checked, and yes, by golly, the original document is still right here, safe and sound.

Hi one_raven,
So for you, it's the transmission of information that's the downfall of the transporter?

Fraggle,
Interesting objection! So do you think the transporter could work for dead things?

Yes, the destructive copying thing is just a plot device. Or perhaps it's a psychological deception that everyone has become used to... it doesn't really transport things, it makes a copy and deliberately destroys the redundant copy. It is possible that people may get used to that idea.

I once read a great book called The Metaphysics of Star Trek by Richard Hanley (http://udel.edu/~hanley/).
In it, he mentioned a couple of Next-Gen episodes which were interesting for their insight into the transporter.
In Second Chances, a duplicate of Will Riker (Tom Riker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Riker)) is made in a transporter accident.
In Relics, Scotty was rescued after putting himself in a kind of suspended animation for 75 years in a transporter's energy pattern.

Yes IF the atoms are available to be converted into what they are intended to become. If you have water atoms they can't become something that doesn't contain water in it. If all you have arte water atoms it will be rather difficult to convert them into something else that doesn't contain water.

Hi cosmic,
There aren't that many different kinds of atoms. Everything is made up of 100 or so different elements (maybe 500? including stable isotopes.)
Water, for example, is made of Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms.

The premise in the opening post is that the replicator has an abundant supply of each type of atom.

Then yes, it is possible. Thank you Pete.