Talk:Replicator (Star Trek)

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)

I support that. This paragraph is very wrong and needs heavy rework done.

According to the description in the TM the replicator is basically a very low resolution transporter and does not do any subatomic rearrangements or quantum level actions, but only on molecular level. For food it uses an organic suspension as raw material, not some particles from space. For non-food there are other bulks of raw material stored in the ship. --192.18.108.75

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)

23rd century

Is it true that Kirk's Enterprise had no replicators? What were they using in Tomorrow is Yesterday, then? Chicken soup appears out of nowhere. Adam Bishop 00:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

We cannot get ahead of ourselves. The hard fact is that replicators were "invented" by the people involved with TNG. No one in the 60's had any ideas about it (or if they did, they didn't get them in the show, which pretty much means that they don't count as far the official Star Trek timeline is concerned). Food in the original Enterprise came from "food dispensers", which, as far as we can tell, came from the kitchen via some sort of lift or some other form of transportation. Plot holes are exactly what they are: plot holes. I don't recall this particular episode entirely (not this part about the food), but the most likely of events is that the production crew placed the soup in the set without the screenplay providing an origin for its presence. If the source of chicken soup or any other food is not explained in any given episode of the Original Series, the writers of that show are to blame, but we cannot infer retroactive continuity from it, especially when one considers the deliberate effort that was made during the conception of TNG to suggest technological leaps that would have occurred over the 8 decades that sepparate the timelines of both shows. Regards, Redux 20:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Redux, I don't understand how Adam Bishop is "getting ahead of ourselves" by referring to canon events, nor how those events can be dismissed as plot holes. To explain away original series technology that seems in all respects identical to replicator technology as the actions of the production crew would be the same thing as explaining away replicators in the 24th Century as nothing more than special effects. I think Mr. Bishop's reference to the sudden chicken soup is legitimate; it is not something the 60s writers overlooked, as in "where did that chicken soup come from?" it was something deliberately introduced as an example of 23rd Century technology. The fact that some users may not remember this particular incident, or others like it, does not change the fact that those incidents -- meaning uses of replicator technology -- were explicity used in the original series.

But that would overlook a particularity of the Star Trek franchise: it started with a tv show from the 60's, then there was a 18-year gap between that and the first franchise, TNG. In this period, the [real] world changed considerably, and that affects our perception of what the future might look like. We can be certain that there were no replicators in the storyline of the Original Series for that very simple reason: it didn't cross anybody's mind back when the show was produced. When replicators were "invented" by the people involved with TNG, the original show was over 20 years old, so it would be uncyclopedic to start referencing to either small mistakes made by the production crew or merely things for which the show didn't offer any explanation (because that wasn't really the focus of production then — they didn't have Michael Okuda) and infer retroactive continuity. "Infer" is key here: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not our place to assume or reflect fan speculation as if it was fact. I'm not aware of any direct retroactive continuity that has ever suggested that there were replicators onboard the original Enterprise. And if such a retcon is ever done, we'd still be obliged to recognize that this was retroactive continuity, that originally there were no replicators on the original Enterprise for the factual reasons I've explained.
Incidentally, that is why I've reverted your changes in the opening paragraph. The version we have now reflects that replicators were created for TNG, and given the Star Trek timeline (80 years separating the OS from TNG and the real world gap between the two), it is arguable that replicators did not exist in the 23rd century (timeframe of the OS), but we acknowledge that "Enterprise" has retconned that in one of its episodes — which is referred not as an example, but rather as the specific episode in which the retcon occurred (still, within the show's universe, the retcon indicates that some other species had replicators as early as the 22nd century, but there's no mention that Starfleet or the Federation might have acquired the technology by the 23rd century. What we know for sure is that they had it in the 24th century and that's what the encyclopedia has to stick to).
Finally, I've just seen that you rewrote the opening paragraph again. I'm sorry, but I'll have to revert it again. Please understand that fan speculation is not encyclopedic material. We are sticking to the facts: replicators were created somewhere around 1986 and 1987, for TNG. They did not exist in the fictional timeline before the 24th century until the relative retcon from "Dead Stop". That's what we are acknowledging in the article. You may want to start a new subheader to discuss fandom interpretation of the series and the retcons done, but the paragraph in question has to remain factual. Regards, Redux 19:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redux, you repeatedly refer to allusions to canon events as fan speculation, which doesn't make any sense at all. Your insistence that the idea of replicators "didn't cross anybody's mind back when the show was produced" is OBJECTIVELY disproven by the fact that the technology WAS featured in several original series episodes, so obviously somebody had to think of it back then. Your logic that technology in the "Star Trek" universe must have advanced in the decades that passed between the settings of the two series is legitimate, but your logic that references to specific episodes do not have any place in an encyclopedic entry is highly faulty; that's all we have to go on. Reference to specific incidents is not inference or speculation, it's simple observation. I have attempted the latest revision to reflect your beliefs without ignoring these plain facts. If you still think that Mr. Bishop's and my own references to explicit events in the series are nothing more than speculation, I would request that you ask another editor to settle the dispute.

No, it was not featured in the OS episodes. That's because it was invented for TNG. One must bear in mind that OS episodes are anywhere between 18 to 24 years older than those from TNG. Any alleged reference to replicators in the OS comes from present interpretation done in light of what was introduced in TNG and the other Star Trek franchise titles. In a way, that's retcon. What we see in the OS is food coming from that window that slides open in the mess hall. That is not a replicator, no one would have assumed that before TNG. There's a difference between canon episodes and what people tend to infer from canon episodes in light of later productions. The problem is that what people (meaning fans) infer doesn't count in an encyclopedia. That is not to say that the article can't feature that sort of interpretation, but it has to be done with no margin for misunderstandings. It has to be clear that we are talking about speculative interpretation in light of modern revisits, but that what was actually done or what actually was happening was this and that. That is why I suggested the new subheader to discuss fandom reinterpretation. This has been done in other articles (not necessarily a new subheader, but a separate discussion, after what is factual has been exposed). You see, it is not just that technology in the fictional Star Trek universe evolved in the 80 years separating the timeframes of TNG and the OS, it is also, and perhaps most importantly, that our (the real people's) world changed considerably, and with it our views of what the future can look like. As an encyclopedia, we still have to account for the original ideas that guided the OS. Replicators and, as other examples, talking computers, Holodecks and others were not in it. As an encyclopedia, we cannot seize inconsistencies, plot holes or unexplained aspects from the OS to claim that they actually had all those things in the original Enterprise. They didn't. And, because this is an encyclopedia, retcon has to be relativized: what was done was that, but this later show retconned in this aspect, suggesting this and that. And we do not go beyond what was directly suggested, such as assuming and stating that the original Enterprise had replicators because a retcon done 35 years after the OS was cancelled suggested that someone else had the technology as early as the 22nd century. Regards, Redux 19:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invention

Are there any Star Trek storylines that explore or at least mention the invention of the replicator? The replicator is probably one of those plot devices that creators try not to think about too hard, but surely some Star Trek writer somewhere has explored the replicator's IC origins. Was it a human creation, or was it introduced to Man by the Vulcans, or what? Mr. Billion 08:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pure speculation here, but based on the Vulcan's reluctance to share tech with humans in ST:ENT...I can't see them giving humans replicator technology. Though I can't recall if ST:ENT explained the transporter other than "viola, it's here, it's approved for biological use..." Cburnett 08:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

True, as far as I know, there's no indication of the actual origin of the replicator, or when exactly it was introduced in the Federation/Starfleet. I do, however, remember a partial information: there's this "Enterprise" episode, "Dead Stop" (which is actually in this article for that reason), where the crew sees a replicator on this alien spaceport. First, that indicates that someone (but not humans or Starfleet) had this technology as early as the 22nd century. Second, T'Pol mentions that she "saw a similar piece of technology" aboard some other alien vessel. This would mean that the Vulcans did not have this technology in the 22nd century either. The most logical explanation (no pun intended) is that the technology was introduced in human and vulcan societies when whatever species that had it joined the Federation. This is obviously retcon, and it does leave the "plot hole" of explaining why Kirk, Spok and company did not have replicators in the 23rd century, which they didn't. One could go down the road of held back technology. We cannot digress from the fact that it was the creators of TNG that actually "invented" the replicator. Regards, Redux 14:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)