It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Replicators

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Given that technology will eventually create a machine akin to the replicators on star trek, how would it actually work and would it in fact destrpy the universe?
If it works by taking atoms and rearranging them into a new object, then aren't we taking matter from the universe and making it more condense? Wouldm't this, over time, deplete the universe of 'matter' to create our onjects of desire?




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I think the universe has enough atoms that we don't have to worry about "depleting it of matter"....



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: taoistguy

There already exists a way to materialise matter, it is called "pair production", but it has a catch: it requires energy. Remember, nothing is created nor destroyed, only transformed. So a replicator would probably work on converting photons (energy) into particles (matter). Since energy is conserved in the mass of the particle (after all, mass = energy), the universe stays stable!




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I think the universe has enough atoms that we don't have to worry about "depleting it of matter"....


But if enough people on enough planets (alien or ourselves having colonised many star systems), surely we will at least deplete the atoms from our air and we all suffocate?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: taoistguy

But if enough people on enough planets (alien or ourselves having colonised many star systems), surely we will at least deplete the atoms from our air and we all suffocate?


This is why ideally, a replicator will not use matter to create matter - otherwise, as you point out, the very idea would be ridiculous.

Instead of matter, we'll probably use photons:

How To Create Matter From Light



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Right. You can't create or destroy energy. Replicators aren't god(s) and wouldn't create energy.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: taoistguy

But if enough people on enough planets (alien or ourselves having colonised many star systems), surely we will at least deplete the atoms from our air and we all suffocate?


This is why ideally, a replicator will not use matter to create matter - otherwise, as you point out, the very idea would be ridiculous.

Instead of matter, we'll probably use photons:

How To Create Matter From Light


Using light. I like it. Light is self sustainable.
But what would we do at night?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: taoistguy

Using light. I like it. Light is self sustainable.
But what would we do at night?

Um, use artificial lighting...

We have to use artificial sources of light to create matter anyway. Normal light doesn't have enough energy, so it has to be lasers, aka, artificial light.


edit on 29-5-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: taoistguy

The universe is a giant eternal replicator
edit on 29-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: taoistguy

Using light. I like it. Light is self sustainable.
But what would we do at night?

Um, use artificial lighting...

We have to use artificial sources of light to create matter anyway. Normal light doesn't have enough energy, so it has to be lasers, aka, artificial light.



Genius! You're a genius.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: taoistguy

The universe is a giant eternal replicator


In that case, is it taking energy and life from other universes?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: taoistguy

You need to think of it as a giant recycling machine more or less.

One thing being broken down to create another....yin and yang...an endless cycle on a grand scale.


At least that's the easiest way my mind arranges the concept.

Cheers!



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: taoistguy
Given that technology will eventually create a machine akin to the replicators on star trek, how would it actually work and would it in fact destrpy the universe?
If it works by taking atoms and rearranging them into a new object, then aren't we taking matter from the universe and making it more condense? Wouldm't this, over time, deplete the universe of 'matter' to create our onjects of desire?



To quote Einstein: "e=mc2".

Forget about the "c2" for now - that's just a constant for the speed of light.

Break that down to energy = matter / matter = energy.

Therefore in theory, if you click your fingers hard enough, you can create matter. (Not out of "thin air" as it may seem, but out of ENERGY! "Ah ha!" You say to yourself -- you're welcome!)
edit on 29-5-2015 by socketdude because: to quote "thin air"



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: socketdude

originally posted by: taoistguy
Given that technology will eventually create a machine akin to the replicators on star trek, how would it actually work and would it in fact destrpy the universe?
If it works by taking atoms and rearranging them into a new object, then aren't we taking matter from the universe and making it more condense? Wouldm't this, over time, deplete the universe of 'matter' to create our onjects of desire?



To quote Einstein: "e=mc2".

Forget about the "c2" for now - that's just a constant for the speed of light.

Break that down to energy = matter / matter = energy.

Therefore in theory, if you click your fingers hard enough, you can create matter. (Not out of thin air as it may seem, but out of ENERGY! "Ah ha!" You say to yourself -- you're welcome!)


Yes, there's no such thing as thin air. Well, there is, but not in the meaning of nothing and emptiness.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: taoistguy


Ive had dreams of the future, years ago, and wrote about some in my thread called "grim visions of the future "

in that thread I describe this machine,

Manufacturers and designers will make money by selling the "blueprint" code, intellectual rights, however you want to call it.

theres still another ....30 to 40 years of life resembling what it does now, with marvelous inventions to come,

.......then the borders between countries disappear, .....and we are in the wild west.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I think you are missing a huge factor of having a replicator. If we are able to gather matter at the atomic and molecular level and control it enough to build things, then we by default would have the power to take things deconstruct them and build new things out of them.

It would take recycling to a whole new level. in fact it would probably usher in a per use society. Meaning we only possess an object as long as it is needed to be used, then after using it we would throw it back into the replicator to be disassembled, sorted and stored, until we wanted to make something else out of it.

For instance you could make a knife to cut up stuff for cooking. as soon as your done you throw it back in the replicator and have it disassembled and stored. when you need a knife again you make one. You only need the knife as long as your using it and you wouldn't even ever have to sharpen, store or maintain it because you just make a brand new one when needed.

Also the molecules and atoms that make up that knife can make up other stuff. If your cooking you have a knife, want to go play golf the same molecules that made up the knife can now make up part of the golf club you just made in your replicator.

And even from the standpoint of waste and garbage, what garbage would such a society produce when the molecules and atoms can be reused over and over endlessly.

just my opinion though



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: prisoneronashipoffools
I think you are missing a huge factor of having a replicator. If we are able to gather matter at the atomic and molecular level and control it enough to build things, then we by default would have the power to take things deconstruct them and build new things out of them.

It would take recycling to a whole new level. in fact it would probably usher in a per use society. Meaning we only possess an object as long as it is needed to be used, then after using it we would throw it back into the replicator to be disassembled, sorted and stored, until we wanted to make something else out of it.

For instance you could make a knife to cut up stuff for cooking. as soon as your done you throw it back in the replicator and have it disassembled and stored. when you need a knife again you make one. You only need the knife as long as your using it and you wouldn't even ever have to sharpen, store or maintain it because you just make a brand new one when needed.

Also the molecules and atoms that make up that knife can make up other stuff. If your cooking you have a knife, want to go play golf the same molecules that made up the knife can now make up part of the golf club you just made in your replicator.

And even from the standpoint of waste and garbage, what garbage would such a society produce when the molecules and atoms can be reused over and over endlessly.

just my opinion though


Why bother with a knide to cook with when you can instantly create the food?

But how many knives and empty milk bottles does it take to make a chickpea curry?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It depends on what kind of replicator you're talking about.

Star Trek replicators? We'd probably be a lot less greedy if we could have whatever we wanted whenever we wanted.

Stargate SG:1 and Atlantis replicators? (self replicating intelligent nanobots) Oh we'd be so screwed....
edit on 29-5-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
OPthe replicators you mean are from STARGATE SG-1



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
You've got me stumped with stargate, never really watched it.
I don't like documentaries.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join