Talk:Replicator (Star Trek)

message: The section on replicator theory needs revision.  As it stands now:
Theoretically, it works by rearranging subatomic particles, which are abundant anywhere in the universe, to form the molecules required by the formula at hand.  The device then arranges the molecules in accordance with said formula to finally create the substance (e.g.: to materialize water, the replicator would first form hydrogen and oxygen molecules in immense quantities, and then arrange them according to the formula  of water).  The difficulty lies in that the number of calculations that a computer would have to perform in order to accomplish that is astounding, and at the rate of development of the computer industry, it is highly unlikely that even a 24th century computer would be capable of it (a similar dilemma concerns Transporter technology).
More specifically, the replicator works by the destructive conversion of bulk matter into energy, then reforming it into a pre-scanned matter pattern.  The principle is similar to that of a transporter but on a smaller scale.  Unlike those, however, which duplicate a matter pattern at the quantum level in real time, replicators must be capable of delivering any of thousands of different materials on demand.  If patterns were to be stored at the quantum level, an impossible amount of data storage (or a set of original copies of the materials) would be required.  To resolve this, patterns are stored in memory at a molecular level.
The first paragraph does not accurately describe the underlying process of the replicator.  It does not rely on the rearrangment of subatomic particles.  It does not create quantities of elemental molecules and then rearrange them chemically.  Computer power has little to do with the situation, and speculating on the technology levels of the 24th century are beside the point in an article on a fictional technology.
Basically, the replicator is a small transporter pad.  It is a special application of Transporter technology that basically beams matter from one location to another, but instead of bothering to duplicate it, substitutes a pre-scanned pattern.
Bulk matter is not stored at the replicator, it is stored at a centralized location on ship or station- which is then converted to energy, transferred to the required terminal, where the energy is converted to matter.  There aren't any chemical reactions, the entire mass is made as a unit, straight down to molecular resolution.  While replicators certainly CAN create elemental matter, it's certainly not exclusively so.
Chemical and subatomic manipulation is a hallmark of the protein synthesis used prior to the development of true replicators.  The first paragraph needs serious revision or removal.  --Alexwcovington (talk) 21:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's wrong, then fine.  But I must say that I did not pull that explanation out of a hat.  It had been used to describe the replicator (I read it in a sci-fi magazine).  It's relatively old though, and it might have been prior to Okuda's more precise definition of how a replicator would work.  We musn't loose sight that this is a fictional technology, and as such there's no actual way through which it "works", it is the figment of someone's imagination.  Even the creators of the show change their minds about some pieces of technology introduced (vis a vis the sonic shower), so theoretically tomorrow someone could come up and say that the replicator actually works in some other completely different fashion (retroactive continuity, as was done with the warp speeds, which were ilimited in the original series, but were scaled from 1 to 10 as of the Next Generation).  Perhaps we could make a note of all of that, informing that the explanation about how the replicator work has changed from "such" to "such", or something along that line.  You see, in this case I don't see "right" and "wrong", but simply a question of versions.  Regards, Redux 17:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "subatomic particles" to atoms in the article. On second thought, I think I'll bow out of this discussion for lack of expertise on fictional replicators. I will say that atoms form molecules, not subatomic particles, so that part defintely needs revising in the way it reads. 5Q5 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with description

message: On a sidenote: what will we do in 95 years, when the arrival of the 22nd century will make ...showing a similar device as early as the 22nd century. dangerously ambiguous? The current version now is merely ambiguous. -- Zanaq 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm, I believe that kind of consideration might be too far-fetched for us to work on.  I mean, in human terms, 95 years is a lifetime (or a couple of them) away.  Who's to say that Star Trek will even be remembered by then?  Besides, changes on account of the "outdating" of "future events" of shows and movies are seldom regarded as relevant enough to bring about relevant changes in the description/approach of any kind done about them.  I mean, as an example, I barely saw a footnote on the "outdating" of the date for doomsday set in the cult movies The Exterminator.  I don't see how it would be realistic to change anything about Star Trek on Wikipedia on account that one day the 22nd century will come and go.  Regards, Redux 21:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia for the ages

message: A replicator can create any inanimate matter, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file, but it cannot create antimatter, dilithium, or a living organism of any kind.
Matter isn't created... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.224.179.148 (talk • contribs) .
:I don't know.  I'm no expert, but perhaps in this context it would be, since we are referring to a fictional technology that can "turn energy into matter and vice-versa".  Certainly Lavoisier didn't have anything like this in mind when conceiving his law.  And in any case, the complication is that we could say that "matter" would be created since the Replicator turns energy into matter, and energy and matter are not exactly the same thing.  Although we could consider a slight rewording: "...replicator can render any kind of inanimate...".  Perhaps that would suffice?  Regards,  Redux 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created? 

message: Surely as long as you have matter-energy transporters you have replicators. At the most basic level you'd only have to beam chicken soup up once and you'd be able to make it infinite times. Many episodes have established that a transporter can be used to clone things, it's just designed not to do so accidentally.
Also, if 'food dispensers' are not replicators, don't they deserve their own article/section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this talk about whether X had replicators at Y time ... 

message: I have a problem with the fact that this article states that TOS never showed an actual 24-th century one. To the contrary, if I can remember the episode were they rescue those crazy kids on treagus (I think its spelled that way), they clearly see an empty "box". The orange cover closes, goes back up and the box is filled with food from absolutely nowhere. Is that not a replicator? -- User: Dark Observer
:I don't remember this episode, so I wouldn't know about context.  However, I will again evoke the factual reality that replicators and their functioning are something that was thought of during the creative process for TNG, which happened about 18 years after TOS had been cancelled.  Reinterpreting what may well be "plot licences", or just another example of unexplained background trivia could simply be wishful thinking.  Fact: the people involved with creating the fictional universe for TOS never thought of replicators; they were invented by the creators of TNG almost two decades later.  Plot holes or things left to the imagination of the viewers at the time cannot be retconned by us to have been replicators.  That'd be original research.  Redux 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On TOS, the food slots were shown in several episodes, even in "The Naked Time" in the early first season. These were actually miniature turbo elevators, moving foods from an automated food preparation system that prepared food at a very high speed and then moved it to the selector slot where the person waited. For TV purposes, it is shown as taking only seconds, but I would imagine in reality it would take 30-90 seconds. The 1974 publication of Enterprise blueprints shows a "Basic Foods Preparation Facility" on Deck 8 or 9, and an "Exotic Foods Preparation Facility" in the secondary hull. GBC 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is further proof that replicators were never included in the Star Trek fictional universe until the mid '80s, when TNG was put together.  Assuming otherwise is speculative, or even imaginative, and is not suited for inclusion in this encyclopedia.  And this is probably the 5th time this point is addressed.  Redux 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: :Image:Janewayreplicator.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Janewayreplicator.jpg

message: I have one single question in mind: If replicators can create energy out of matter, why does the Voyager crew has to "save the energy for the journey back to home" ? Can't they use their own garbage, or better, some asteroids, to create unlimited energy to run the ship and the replicators ?  Answer(theory that makes sence).It takes energy to recylce matter into energy and the amount you wind up with is not high enough for this to be practical it is like burning a gallon of fuel to make a gallon and an ounce it just isn't practical
J
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.165.251 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlimited energy, then? 

message: :Image:Janewayreplicator.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Janewayreplicator.jpg

message: Might be a bit nitpicky, but there IS money, just not used by Humans. This article even mentions latinum, the  currency in general use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.109.108.119 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moneyless Star Trek Universe?

message: Star Trek technology is quite popular, and a lot of people think about the question whether things such as beaming or holodecks can eventually be invented. Is there any scientist who has ever talked about the ST replicator technology? -- Orthographicus (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are far from converting matter to energy and back on a large scale. I think it has been done on very tiny scales. 3D printing you may wish to look at.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Replicator? 

message: If someone has a copy of A Private Little War can they check the text of the last paragraph of the plot. Does Kirk want flintlocks manufactured or 'replicated'?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I know that the image is showing a Makerbot brand 3D printer called the "Replicator", but I don't think such an image belongs on the Star Trek Replicator page, especially when 3D printing isn't discussed.
24.246.12.8 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makerbot image