2.2 & Megacorp Teasers
- Thread starter Mitchz95
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I know the M/E equivalancy. The thing that let Einstein realize E=mc² and thus solve the mystery of the mass defect.
And we managed to Teleport a Photon years ago. That still does not mean Replication is any less science fiction then Teleportation.
Trade Routes
Trade routes teased 
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1043131139676942337?s=20
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1043131139676942337?s=20
Wiz said:So, I hear you guys are interested in hearing about trade routes? Maybe look at a sneak peek with some amazing programmer art? (Don't try to make sense of the numbers, Zatar is incorrectly showing as 0 instead of 5 trade value due to a bug)
I wonder what determines the direction of the trade route? Why is one incoming and one outgoing, and what difference does that make?
That's not teleportation like you or I would understand it and isn't akin to what is presented in star trek. I wouldn't touch Quantum Physics unless you're actually well educated on it (which I am not and won't be getting into any details because I'd probably get it wrong). Matter fabrication from energy is less sci-fi than outright trek-style teleportation I would say.
Wiz has probably selected "Zatar" + "Trunt" is probably in the north of "Zatar", so that 8 trade-value from "Trunt" are coming in to "Zatar" and with 5 trade-value from "Zatar" itself, this leads to 13 trade-value are going out to "Sol".
Edit:
I guess, that the trade-direction is probably determined towards the capital of an empire.
Edit:
It's not luxury goods, but trade-value.
Last edited:
Well, that's not quite teleportation is it? They "teleported" the information about the quantum state of 1 photon, via a 2nd photon to a 3rd photon. Entirely different photons, nothing actually got "teleported" as you're implying, a la Star Trek.
However, they actually did create matter from energy - ie, they took some photons, mooshed them together and created "matter" (mostly electrons).
So, on the face of it, the teleportation argument you presented was false, as it wasn't actual teleportation as you equate it to as seen in Sci Fi, but we can actually create massive particles from massless particles (energy to matter conversion). Not science fiction at all.
Star Trek Teleporters are literally just "Mater Fabrication" based on "Teleported Energy". So yes, both things are teh same kind of ScienceFiction.
It works better when others can quote it, like this:
"So, I hear you guys are interested in hearing about trade routes? Maybe look at a sneak peek with some amazing programmer art? (Don't try to make sense of the numbers, Zatar is incorrectly showing as 0 instead of 5 trade value due to a bug)
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1043131139676942337
Seems pretty similar to EU4:It works better when others can quote it, like this:
"So, I hear you guys are interested in hearing about trade routes? Maybe look at a sneak peek with some amazing programmer art? (Don't try to make sense of the numbers, Zatar is incorrectly showing as 0 instead of 5 trade value due to a bug)
"
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1043131139676942337
Trunt Sends 8 to Zatar.
Zatar produces 5 itself.
13 are send on to Sol, wich is propably a end node.
Star Trek teleporters are murder machines! They rip you apart at the sub-atomic level, transmit all the information about you across space and reassemble you at the other end out of other stuff. How is that even survivable?
But it's silly to compare something as daft as a sci-fi teleporter with actual science being done today. You can't say one is silly because the other is, when they're not even remotely in the same ball park!
That does seem to fit the known facts. I have so many questions!
There's an extra step there. For matter fabrication, you just need to be able to turn energy into matter. For a teleporter, which would still only work at the speed of light, you need to be able to do that, with unfathomable precision and somehow retain all the aspects that makes a person a person whatever those may be (if they even exist), unless the teleporter just kills everyone every time it transports them and creates a clone. So I would still say the former is more scientifically plausible. I'm not sure what you were originally arguing but you've changed the argument like twice now. Initially you said that creating matter from energy was "as realistic as star trek replicators" (which I would agree with) but that they had "no logical basis" and acted as if it was some fantasy act. It doesn't violate any laws of physics afaik and should be theoretically possible. That was my point, idk why we're talking about teleporters now.
So
Like I said, creating matter from energy vs restructuring existing matter (which also creates some mass from energy) is the same as the energy released by fusing an entire star's worth of hydrogen to iron vs turning half a star into anti-matter and letting it eliminate the other half.
Based on some really subpar math I just did, it's a factor of at least 100.
Then, add to that the fact that if your starting point is hydrogen and helium rather than iron, some or the restructuring actually releases energy!
It is not a matter of the conversion being possible. It is a matter of how much energy is required.
Like I said, creating matter from energy vs restructuring existing matter (which also creates some mass from energy) is the same as the energy released by fusing an entire star's worth of hydrogen to iron vs turning half a star into anti-matter and letting it eliminate the other half.
Based on some really subpar math I just did, it's a factor of at least 100.
Then, add to that the fact that if your starting point is hydrogen and helium rather than iron, some or the restructuring actually releases energy!
So everyone who has created matter from energy in recent experiments now has stars and large anti-matter sources in their labs to power them? Or did they (as described in the link you didn't read) simply use existing particle colliders?
So how much power do you need to feed into your particle accelerators to create enough matter to build say, a spaceship? The energy requirements for industrial quantities of matter is rather astronomical. It would indeed be a lot cheaper energy-wise to transmute some cheap existing matter into something more useful.
Indeed, I'm not saying it is efficient! Just pointing out the grandiose claims of it being either impossible or needing the output of a Star to make work are false.
Sorry, my comparison was meant to say "if you have matter (which you do) why would you ever create matter when you could restructure the matter you have instead for 1% of the cost".
And, let's say you wanted to create a starship. That weighs... I dunno, 100,000 tons. The energy to create that matter would be the more than that released by fusing 10 million tons of hydrogen to helium. Definitely doable for a civilization that creates Dyson spheres (the sun fuses 600 million tons per second) but not doable by us any time soon.
Of course, a sufficiently advanced civilization, with effectively unlimited energy and unlimited capacity to direct that energy, might choose to create matter rather than restructuring if the process has fewer moving parts, because the 100x increase in efficiency just isn't worth the effort.
Yeah, energy to matter conversion is not science fiction, and it wouldn't require the whole output of a star. According to https://physics.info/fusion/practice.shtml, the sun convert about 4 million tons of matter to energy every second, which at perfect efficiency would build something like 4000 titans an hour...
On the other hand, it probably takes less than 1/1000th the energy of a star to power a simple mine. So numbers in Stellaris are kind of crazy.
Ah, I see - in that case, you have a very good point. Creating enough matter out of energy to build a spaceship (at least with current or even theoretical tech) is extremely inefficient compared to just, you know, getting the stuff out the ground.