One thing to remember is that the energy taken to create matter is enormous. It wasn't until I read more about replicators that I realize they didn't convert energy/matter. I know that I use to assumed replicators and transporters used matter and energy conversion. Here is a combined version of some of those posts. I seem to have been talking about it all day in this thread. I was thinking about making a post about this as well. So if Starfleet has matter/energy conversion it would break a number of other technologies we know about and probably have implications for many others.Īllow me to shamelessly copy from myself: It would also gives us enormous energy if we could release all the energy in matter (cough, M/AM reactor, cough). The basic problem is as you say, it takes an enormous amount of energy to create matter. So, if you're using pure energy as your medium, the patty on your quarter-pounder required the same energy as would be emitted by ~161 Hiroshima bombs. Therefore, to create one gram of mass, you'd need energy equal to 90 terajoules, which is half again more energy than was released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

If the 'matter stream' used by the transporter (emphasis on matter, and not energy,) is largely composed of intact atoms, (possibly in combination with some subatomic particles,) the subject is being reconstructed from the same atoms in the same relative position, which is at least slightly more philosophically complex.Įdit: To illustrate the volumes of energy required to create mass:Īccording to this article, '90 megajoules of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram.' If the transporter is reducing the subject to an amorphous stream of pure energy, it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't being killed and remade. Such processes would simply be separate from what actually occurs at the replicator console, even though they may provide some of the necessary base materials for the replicator.Īdditionally, the atomic approach makes the transporter seem a lot less sinister. It's also worth mentioning that this doesn't preclude the ability to synthesize some elements using other materials, which would certainly require energy. ie, dilithium is an element, so you can't replicate it unless you have some to begin with. It also serves to explain why some resources can't be replicated. Also, it handily explains why traders and freighters and mining and economies still exist at large throughout the galaxy. The energy requirements to create matter from pure energy would be unbelievably massive. Personally, I subscribe to the atomic-resolution theory, because it seems a lot more efficient. The same division seems to exist in the theoretical perspectives on the workings of the transporter. If you run out of one element, you won't be able to replicate objects that incorporate that element. Therefore, you can replicate a gold watch as long as you have the gold as a base element to begin with. Theory #2: Replicators start with elemental matter and essentially rearrange and combine those atoms into the desired structure. Therefore, they should be able to create most any matter as long as energy resources are sufficient. Theory #1: Replicators operate on a subatomic level and are essentially creating matter from pure energy. Replicators have certainly been discussed at length in this sub, but there always seems to be an unresolved division between two schools of thought:

Baseelements time conversion