Timeline for How much data storage is needed for a blueprint used by a replicator?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:37 | comment | added | Muuski | @Caveknight32 So...it's not "something as simple as an A-10" but requires the same amount of information (complexity) as an A-10? | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:30 | comment | added | Caveknight32 | @Muuski The amount of information is what I mean by when I say scale. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:25 | comment | added | Muuski | @Caveknight32 The size of an object is irrelevant to the amount of information needed to replicate it. Compare the complexity of a CPU versus a hot air balloon. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:18 | comment | added | Caveknight32 | @Muuski The need is referring to knowing the scale of what I'm working with. If something like an A-10 or gold requires huge amounts of data storage, then I'll know where to start/go from therewith more complex and more exotic stuff. This will also justify the need/use of the material I've mentioned in the post as well. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:11 | comment | added | Muuski | @Caveknight32 What does "some examples as a reference for what I need" mean then if it's not actually something you need? | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 21:08 | comment | added | Caveknight32 | @Muuski that's just there as a reference, I'm not thinking about actually using this tech to build something as simple as an A-10. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 20:39 | comment | added | Muuski | This is serious overkill. Current day manufacturing doesn't store things at the atom scale and the examples given by OP are all things that were produced using much less information than you're talking about. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 19:59 | comment | added | Caveknight32 | @Trevor the "atom" part refers more to the materials that make-up the A-10 than the A-10 itself, and the molecule part refers to the material's shape and how it interacts with other materials. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 19:38 | comment | added | Trevor | @Punintended Each bit just says which atom it is. It doesn't describe it. But your right, if you want to describe the atom perfectly, you would need a lot more data. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 19:33 | comment | added | Punintended | That's all well and good until he wants make a bar of uranium. You'd need a lot more bits per atom to account for possible or even reasonable isotopes. Similarly, any radiometric dating technique would be impossible on replicated items | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 19:16 | history | edited | Trevor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 523 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2019 at 19:06 | history | answered | Trevor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |