Is My Sci-Fi Story's Scientific Premise Believable?

Summary:: Can you tell me if my sci-fi story's scientific premise is remotely believable?

I am writing a sci-Fi novel. The scientific premise of the story is like this...

The creature in my story is created in a lab by a quantum physicist. With a quantum computer, and electron microscopes and using the atom probe tomography technology, the scientist successfully scans a human zygote at the atomic level. From the scan, he obtains the complete data of the zygote's cell structure, including its genome. Then, he uses a special material to make necessary molecules, and ultimately "prints" an zygote clone. Since the clone is the exact copy at the atomic level, the clone replicates itself, just as the original human zygote does.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me my story's scientific premise is remotely believable. If not, any suggestion as to other science technology/ideas I can look into?

Thank you so much.

I don't know your audience, but I suspect that believability will not be an issue.

Limit it to one cell only and don't forget to add some (very) low temperature.
It'll be still far out of our current reach but will be far closer than what many bestsellers trying to build on.

unsaint32 said:

Summary:: Can you tell me if my sci-fi story's scientific premise is remotely believable?

I am writing a sci-Fi novel. The scientific premise of the story is like this...

The creature in my story is created in a lab by a quantum physicist. With a quantum computer, and electron microscopes and using the atom probe tomography technology, the scientist successfully scans a human zygote at the atomic level. From the scan, he obtains the complete data of the zygote's cell structure, including its genome. Then, he uses a special material to make necessary molecules, and ultimately "prints" an zygote clone. Since the clone is the exact copy at the atomic level, the clone replicates itself, just as the original human zygote does.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me my story's scientific premise is remotely believable. If not, any suggestion as to other science technology/ideas I can look into?

Thank you so much.

It's a bit late for an answer but in case it helps, firstly, you don't need to use the magic word "quantum". It may add to the mystique of the premiss in some people's minds but it's really off-putting to people who know what the word means.

Secondly, yes, cloning, at the molecular level is perfectly plausible. Doing it at the atomic level is much more difficult, because you would then be building molecules atom by atom and releasing energy as the chemical bonds form. Unless your story specifically needs atoms, you might as well use off-the-shelf molecules as your building blocks. They can mostly be prepared at room temperature with standard lab equipment right now.

Thirdly, a minor problem is of starting the cellular processes up before the rest of the cell has been built. But that is easily solved: the cell would undergo its final stages of construction at a very low temperature. Cells can be stored and revived in liquid nitrogen.

Fourthly, yes, scanning a molecule with a scanning tunelling microscope is already possible. It should be perfectly possible to extend it to a cell-sized object, the only serious problem being flattening a cell to one molecule thick. But you probably don't need to scan it to that much detail everywhere - one ribosome is very like another. DNA, is, of course, critical and moderately bulky so you might have to think about that one.

unsaint32 said:

Summary:: Can you tell me if my sci-fi story's scientific premise is remotely believable?

Yes, will do (though biology is not one of my strengths)...

unsaint32 said:

The creature in my story is created in a lab by a quantum physicist. With a quantum computer, and electron microscopes and using the atom probe tomography technology, the scientist successfully scans a human zygote at the atomic level. From the scan, he obtains the complete data of the zygote's cell structure, including its genome. Then, he uses a special material to make necessary molecules, and ultimately "prints" an zygote clone. Since the clone is the exact copy at the atomic level, the clone replicates itself, just as the original human zygote does.

I'll be honest here: I think it's an excellent premise. It's cool and exciting (at least to me), and that can be good for the story.

It seems you are going into the realms of artificial life and synthetic biology (which I personally like as a basis).

unsaint32 said:

I would appreciate it if you could tell me my story's scientific premise is remotely believable. If not, any suggestion as to other science technology/ideas I can look into?

It's believable enough for me. It's still science fiction, so you are true to the meaning of the term.

kered rettop said:

It's a bit late for an answer but in case it helps, firstly, you don't need to use the magic word "quantum". It may add to the mystique of the premiss in some people's minds but it's really off-putting to people who know what the word means.

I would agree with this.

And, off the top of my head, I'd say one option is instead to invent completely new names for new technologies if you want to sound really futuristic.

Edit: And maybe @BillTre would have some thoughts on your premise too, it wouldn't surprise me.

I like that the basic premise (making an exact molecular replicate of a cell would result in a cell with the original cell's properties) is good.

I would also lose the quantum stuff, except maybe the quantum computer. Biology has made great advances in recent years that are based on huge databases of information and what would have been unbelievable computer processing capabilities. This would be a nice continuation of that. Copy all the atoms involved (to copy the cell) would require a big step up in the amounts of information and the processing of it. Say the difference between maybe 30,000 human genes vs. 100 trillion atoms (10¹⁴).
Thus the lag time between now and your story is explainable.
The manipulations to actually print the cell would also be a big deal requiring development.

After such an exact copy is made (or more than one copy) the different versions could diverge in their own pathways of individual development that they undergo due to having different interactions with their environment, as well as random differences in how their own constituent atoms behave.

This would all be expensive.

unsaint32 said:

I would appreciate it if you could tell me my story's scientific premise is remotely believable. If not, any suggestion as to other science technology/ideas I can look into?

Thank you so much.

DennisN said:

It's believable enough for me. It's still science fiction, so you are true to the meaning of the term.

I just came to think about something I wanted to add...

I am a fan of science fiction in general, not only what's called hard science fiction, but also soft science fiction (e.g. I love the original Star Wars trilogy, and it's not known for being realistic (and in fact there are more elements of fantasy than science in it, but nevermind)).

My point is that a good science fiction story (based on a premise which in your case seems to be biology) does not have to be realistic to be good.

A perfect example of this is the novel Frankenstein (1818, by Mary Shelley) (genre: horror/science fiction).

Is it realistic?
I don't think so, even with my limited knowledge of biology .

Is it good?
Oh, it's very good! (in my opinion)

Partly because the fundamental idea has very strong and suggestive ingredients.
In short, it's basically about creating a living creature from dead body parts.
It is very exciting and horrifying at the same time, scientifically challenging (for its time) AND philosophically challenging. And I think those ingredients are strong reasons why the Frankenstein novel became so influential:

Wikipedia said:

On 5 November 2019, BBC News included Frankenstein in its list of the 100 most influential novels. In 2021 it was one of six classic science fiction novels by British authors selected by Royal Mail to be featured on a series of UK postage stamps.

Wikipedia said:

Brian Aldiss has argued for regarding it as the first true science-fiction story. In contrast to previous stories with fantastical elements resembling those of later science fiction, Aldiss states, the central character "makes a deliberate decision" and "turns to modern experiments in the laboratory" to achieve fantastic results.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein

Y'all know this thread is 3 years old right. Hopefully the story has been written by now.

Vanadium 50 said:

Y'all know this thread is 3 years old right. Hopefully the story has been written by now.

I guess we did a Frankenstein move here, trying to bring life to a dead thread.

Vanadium 50 said:

Y'all know this thread is 3 years old right. Hopefully the story has been written by now.

That's the trouble with you youngsters, always wanting everything yesterday. I tell you, if a story takes less than ten years to write, it's not worth reading. That's my excuse anyway. (Four years and counting.)

Ha ! I'm still spinning consequence from my 'Convention', which I first imagined back in the '70s. World-building 'side-quested' me into astronomy, programming etc etc etc..
Currently trying to figure how tall a singular 'Large Igneous Province' (LIP) or mega volcanic 'Shield' can get on a planet ~10% more massive than Earth --To have a robust magnetic field and help thwart 'moist greenhouse run-away'-- without plate tectonics and without sinking into its own 'secondary isostasy' moat...
'Nuvada', a mostly-dry planet with a mostly-placid K2-ish star, has lowlands' lakes and seas reduced to salt-flats and hyper-saline pools, with a dozen broiling Bar of utterly ghastly 'Messinian Med' conditions. Yet, atop the vast LIP/shield, conditions are sorta-SCUBA pressure, and 'condensing'...
But, how tall ??

Nik_2213 said:

Currently trying to figure how tall a singular 'Large Igneous Province' (LIP) or mega volcanic 'Shield' can get on a planet ~10% more massive than Earth

Olympus Mons on Mars is a large shield volcano:
from wikipedia:

Olympus Mons ( /əˌlɪmpəs ˈmɒnz, oʊˌ-/;[4] Latin for Mount Olympus) is a shield volcano on Mars. It is over 21.9 km (13.6 mi or 72,000 ft) high as measured by the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA),[5] and is about two and a half times Mount Everest's height above sea level.

The earth's magnetic field is based on rotating mass of metal, carrying charges along to create the magnetic field. Not sure if a not much moving magnetic mass would work as well.
It might be possible to have charges (like ions) flowing around in a fluid to create a planetary magnetic field.

"Olympus Mons on Mars..."
Agreed, BillTre, and that was my first 'Port of Call'.
Mars, though is significantly less massive than Earth, with a much lower gravity, and 'long-expired' tectonics so no remaining core dynamo and a cooler, less flexible crust etc etc.
IIRC, there's no 'isostatic' moat around Mons' complex comparable to that around eg Hawaii's Big Island...

Nik_2213 said:

no 'isostatic' moat around Mons' complex

what's that?

H's Big Island is so heavy that it not only depresses sea-bed beneath it, but also around itself.
IIRC, there's even a mild uplift as a rim beyond. the moat. Sorry, may take some digging to find more non-paywalled references.....

Analogy is how primary isostatic glacial depression of Canada & Northern US gave secondary uplift to zone beyond, eg around New York. Which, as Hudson Bay etc recovers, is now going down.
Similarly, with glaciers gone, Highlands of Scotland are slowly rising, and SE UK --London & Co-- slowly falling...
AGW sea-level rise, aquifer abstraction and this secondary isostatic 'escalator' have combined to significantly shorten useful life of 'Thames Barrier': IIRC, they're looking at a vast 'estuary' scheme, akin to Dutch designs...
Here in NW UK, I'm safe on 'hinge line' which runs WSW/ENE between primary glacial depression and secondary uplift. Downside is flexure wracks umpteen small but exasperating fault lines. These historically closed many coal mines, recently thwarted gas-fracking...


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...2ahUKEwingIqF8faEAxUHUqQEHTJACwQQMygAegQIARBJ

unsaint32 said:

Summary:: Can you tell me if my sci-fi story's scientific premise is remotely believable?

I am writing a sci-Fi novel. The scientific premise of the story is like this...

The creature in my story is created in a lab by a quantum physicist. With a quantum computer, and electron microscopes and using the atom probe tomography technology, the scientist successfully scans a human zygote at the atomic level. From the scan, he obtains the complete data of the zygote's cell structure, including its genome. Then, he uses a special material to make necessary molecules, and ultimately "prints" an zygote clone. Since the clone is the exact copy at the atomic level, the clone replicates itself, just as the original human zygote does.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me my story's scientific premise is remotely believable. If not, any suggestion as to other science technology/ideas I can look into?

Thank you so much.

you an become a writer bro if you ever release this movie please inform me bro

you need to add a litter twist to it ...like...a crackpot character who use numerology or gematria to mess up everything

Perhaps an ageing, increasingly cranky billionaire / politician ??
Ambitions thwarted,, sees this as a way to clone himself, establish a dynasty.
Refuses to accept 'NO !!' or even 'FU !!'

IIRC, this was sorta-premise of AC Clarke's 'Imperial Earth'...
Care: To avert misunderstanding, do not name Antagonist as anything even remotely related to card-play !!