Full Digitization And Materialization

[CaelesMessorem]

   I was thinking about 3D printing (for no real reason) when this concept came to mind. In theory, do you believe that it would be possible to scan an object (mostly solid matter, though the goal would be any form of matter) and convert it into digital data, which could then be rematerialized at any given time? You could almost think of it as the reverse of the 3d print process, where instead of using an already available model file and laying material down in layers to convert that into a physical 3d model, you would instead use a sensor to scan the object inside and out, and from there create a file containing all the necessary data for the object and any components, exactly as they are, which could then be rematerialized identically to the original object. (Think of the vehicle system in the Borderlands videogame series).

[CraigD]

In principle, since we have technology that can precisely measure the arrangement and elemental composition of physical object, and to manufacture them, a “scanner/replicator” like you describe seems to me possible.

 

In practice, there are a lot of limitations in existing or likely near-future technology for both the scanning and making parts of such a system.

 

Most present-day 3D printers can make things only out of a single materials, such as plastic, metal, or candy. Some can, using multiple extruder nozzles or quickly switching between different feedstock, can make objects out of different similar materials, such as different colored plastics, but to the best of my knowledge, no 3-D printer can make objects containing very dissimilar materials, such as plastic and metal. This makes sense, when you consider how difficult it is to have melted metal and plastic near one another.

 

Some kinds of 3D printers aren’t compatible with one another. For example, ones that make parts by fusing a bed of powder aren’t compatible with ones that extrude material from nozzles.

 

Due to the “single step” nature of 3D printers, parts made by them are usually weaker than those made using conventional manufacturing.

 

Taking all this, I think that the “making” part of a true “replicator” (like those depicted in the Star Trek TV shows and movies), wouldn’t much resemble a present day 3D printer, but would need to be a fully automatic, miniaturized factory that created parts separate from one another, then assembled them. The scanning part would need to have a suite of imaging devices. A destructive scanning process – that is, one that takes the scanned object apart as part of the process – would be easier to make than a non-destructive one.

 

Some objects, such as biological material, might be impossible or nearly impossible to replicate, because their parts are so small, and not made by non-biological machines.

 

The scanners in STrek are IMHO physically impossible, because they rely on that fictional world’s “transporter” technology, which is impossible according to know physical law.

[CaelesMessorem]

You could almost think of what I was describing as a form of storage device. An item is converted from physical matter to digital data, and from digital data back to physical matter at will.

 

 

In principle, since we have technology that can precisely measure the arrangement and elemental composition of physical object, and to manufacture them, a “scanner/replicator” like you describe seems to me possible.

In practice, there are a lot of limitations in existing or likely near-future technology for both the scanning and making parts of such a system.

 

   As far as you know, what different limitations do you see for scanner technology that would make this sort of system difficult to actualize? I also didn't realize just how similar to a teleportation system this sounded until now heheh I suppose in essence they're the same, though what I'm proposing isn't meant to send the object to any given location, only in an imediate area.

[CraigD]

As far as you know, what different limitations do you see for scanner technology that would make this sort of system difficult to actualize?

Most scanners “see” using visible or infrared light (lidar) or sound (sonar), so can get shape data only for the outside surface of opaque objects, so "seeing inside" an object to be scanned is a fundamental challenge.

 

We have very mature technology for using EM radiation, such as x-rays and penetrating radar, to image the inside of some materials, but many common, useful objects, such as metal ones, are opaque/reflective to them. Increasing the intensity of radiation like this, or sound-based schemes like ultrasound, can see though these objects, but the choice of light wavelength, sound, and intensity depends heavily on the material to be imaged.

 

As with the maker side of a replicator starting to resemble an automated factory, the scanner side of it starts to resemble an automated human laboratory, with multi-step processes to examine the object to be scanned, chose the scanning technology, try, retune, and repeat until successful. There’s nothing in principle impossible, nor any single step that hasn’t already been done in a human lab, but automating the process and packaging it in a single small device is very challenging.

 

The challenge is lessened if the kinds of objects the replicator is expected to be able to replicate are restricted – some pros and dedicated hobbyists can do tricks like making plastic replicas of randomly choses objects like wrenches and hammers now – but a true “replicate almost anything” system currently takes a lot of human smarts, and many kinds of machines.