[krapp]

>Those writers had more time to think about this stuff than most science labs and engineering teams imho.

No, they didn't. They came up with transporters to save money not having effects shots of ships taking off and landing, and replicators are basically the same, a prop meant to save a bit of money while looking "futuristic". Replicators and transporters violate physics (thermodynamics, the uncertainty principle, E=MC^2) and cannot exist as depicted in Star Trek. They spent zero time working out the science because they're television writers, not scientists.

The best you could do in the real world is 3D printers and fabbers. But directly converting energy into complex physical structures in a way that isn't insanely less efficient than physical manufacturing or agriculture? No.

[k9s9]

Oh Geez! I work in Industrial Automation. I have had a front row seat to the gains made over the last 20 years that nobody ever predicted. I give factory tours regularly and most people with decades of experience have their minds blown at the efficiency gains in industrial processes.

It has nothing to do with violating physics. Its just about being part of hyper-connected systems where incremental change, is happening in a thousand different places along the entire assembly line that add up to huge gains that nobody can imagine individually.

Are we going to see things materializing at button press in an instant? No. But we are going to get damn close.

[kowdermeister]

What would 3D printers look like in 100 years?

[bluedino]

Polymimetic alloys