Okay I know they have worked with 3D nano printers in the lab as of late.
I know 3D nano printer or molecular assembler is not a star trek replicator because a star trek replicator uses energy to turn energy into matter. And would require energy output of Jupiter and because of the uncertainty principle you cannot know where atom is at . We may never get a star trek replicator.
But a 3D nano printer or molecular assembler is like inkjet printer each molecular is set to a Machine and each molecular is built on other molecule to build any thing.
A 3D nano printer or molecular assembler some like to call it moves molecules around NOT atoms around yes not atoms around.
Because of the uncertainty principle you really cannot move atoms around or build any thing with manipulating atoms .
The human body works similar to nano printer it breaks food down to molecules and than bind molecules to build stuff.
So a molecular assembler is like inkjet printer each molecular is set to a Machine and each molecular is built on other molecule.
A glass of water would require two sets of molecules set two the machine a molecular for water and the molecular for glass or plastic. What ever you going to use for container.
But, yeah, the more common effects, such as DNA printers, are molecular assemblers. You can get any string of DNA you want, as easy as typing in the letters.
There was talk of using something like this, if DNA was ever discovered on Mars. Instead of bringing physical samples back, they’d scan them there, and then print them here, which, on the DNA level, is pretty darn close to a Star Trek transporter.
Molecular assemblers are science fiction, unless you are talking about a few dozens of atoms, like Don Eigler spelling IBM in atoms using a scanning tunneling microscope at temperatures near absolute zero.
Current thinking that while a design where a “print head” spitting out individual atoms sounds cool, it’s not going to work and not how nature does it. A more practical machine would work just like living cells do, except everything is done in a clean vacuum and instead of diffusion, individual assembly lines converge. Like this. It’s called “convergent assembly” and essentially each assembly line is optimized for a specific molecular product that then get converged into more complex products and so on up the chain. Just like living cells do it.
A DNA printer is a molecular assembler: it assembles the molecules according to a blueprint. A DNA printer is a 3D nano printer: it puts the molecules together in the necessary 3D conformation (double helix.)
It’s a question of definition. My interpretation was that the OP was using the term in the crackpot sense of Eric Drexler, i.e. a “proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision.” DNA printers do nothing of the sort. They exploit molecular self-assembly, in which large quantities of molecules diffuse around until they find a compatible reaction partner. This is a variant of good old fashioned organic synthesis. We just have excellent machines that can automate the process.
Ribosomes and other enzymes are a different story. They do work with atomic precision. We are finding ways to harness them, even at the individual molecule level, for example to do DNA sequencing. This is far removed from what Eric Drexler proposed.
Don Eigler and people like him have done molecular assembly in the Drexler sense, but scaling from dozens of atoms placed on a flat surface to 10^23 atoms in complex 3-D arrangements is still science fiction.
How do you think amino acids are made? Yep, atomically precise synthesis. Sure, the movement occurs by diffusion - same as the initial stages on Drexler’s “crackpot” vision. Living things contain a series of atom by atom synthesis steps to make every amino acid.
A science fiction machine would use stored molecules to make stuff. It would probably have big buffers of gas bottles with pure gasses that carry every element.
Star Trek replicators require materials to build stuff. Well, depends on the canon, but the most reasonable interpretation is that they can interconvert protons and neutrons and stick them together on mass scales with ease. So the star trek replicator probably can convert any element to any other element, and then once it has the needed elements, combine it all together using magic.
A science fiction nanoassembler would break down “food” materials (junk and broken equipment, etc) down to pure gasses carrying each element. It would then be able to build up anything it has the elements for. (a realistic machine wouldn’t be able to interconvert elements and it wouldn’t be able to separate isotopes. Most models would only be capable of working with a small subset of the periodic table. So no, you couldn’t shovel in raw uranium and print a nuke because of the lack of isotope separation. But you could print isotope separation equipment if you had the blueprints for it…)
The human body moves atoms around by the expedient of putting gates and filters that do not allow unwanted atoms past. The atoms move around on their own, but can only go where the body allows them. In practice this is almost the same thing, and in Drexler’s “crackpot” vision it works the same way. Look at this videoI linked, again : notice how that very thing is happening at the start? Now, that molecular sieve rotor it shows at the start is not currently manufacturable, but if it’s science fiction, so is this.
Okay, my fault for using the wrong definition. No, certainly, there is not now any such thing as a device to assemble arbitrary molecules as we wish. We can do some damn amazing things, to be sure, but mostly, we’re still using good old-fashioned chemistry.
A Star Trek replicator might be possible for some products. It might be able to spit out large amounts of, I dunno, Vitamin C or something (we can already pretty much do that…) It would be interesting if a replicator could pour out large amounts of sugar, ordinary sucrose, thus bypassing photosynthesis on a major industrial scale.
If Habeed means catabolism that breaks down organic matter and harvests energy by way of cellular respiration and anabolism that uses energy to construct molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. Than no we are no where close to that.
But I’m talking about nano printer or molecular assembler not an organic system that similar to star trek replicator. A organic system or star trek replicator would change the world and be the holy grail.
But a nano printer or molecular assembler would also change the world.
Well a nano printer would be spitting out molecular. It would print molecular by molecular to build stuff.
Note it can’t print a molecular or element it does not have in its bin like a ink jet printer cannot print black and white if it don’t have that color.
Where a star trek replicator would be spitting out atoms and moving atoms around to build stuff!!
A star trek replicator does not need a bin of set molecular or element. A star trek replicator does not need atom of gold to replicate gold.
We don’t know that. It’s quite possible that it does require exactly that: a big set of supply bins filled with atoms (perhaps suspended in gaseous solution.) It’s fictional; it’s whatever the producers say (…and whatever the fans accept! We have a minor form of veto, when we all get together and say, “Nah!”)
One thing to consider is that it would be much (much!) easier to do molecular printing for some kinds of molecules rather than others. Just take the production of nylon, which is a kind of “molecular assembly.” You just pour one fluid into another: presto! Polymers!
Compare that to, say, trying to assemble various kinds of proteins. That’d be a damn sight tougher.
So where does the molecular assembler fit in this? A nano printer would be spitting out molecules from the molecule bins. It would print molecule by molecule to build stuff.
And a star trek replicator would be spitting out atoms and moving atoms around to build stuff.
A nano printer would work with molecules.
A star trek replicator would work with atoms.
A nano printer may not be able to cut or join molecules.
For instance, a Star Trek replicator might do subassemblies: making up vats of molecules first, then chains of molecules, than clumps of chains, and finally the desired tissue, such as chicken-flesh for a chicken-salad-sandwich.
The storage tanks might have the more commonly-used molecules already on site, to save one step in the assembly. (Why combine oxygen and hydrogen…when you can have big tanks of water?)
Or…who can know? Maybe they use “transporter” technology to duplicate matter from stored templates. I’m eating exactly the same chunk of chicken you are, duplicated by a transporter, atom by atom.
Anything we can say on the subject is necessarily “nonsense” because there’s no way to know if it’s right or wrong.
Not long ago I learned that there has been research going on for building structures (very tiny and simple ones for the moment) using DNA molecules.
Basically they create DNA blocks and use the same molecular “machinery” present in a cell to assemble the blocks in a certain pattern, fascinating stuff.