No, it doesn't tell you anything. It's technobabble, the mark of bad science fiction. The rest of the story might be fine, but there's no excuse for such nonsense.

If Geordie (or whoever) wants to talk about a new piece of technology, he would be better off simply telling us what it does (e.g. "It detects chlorine in swimming pools, Captain,") and then, if the story requires it, Picard can say, "Geordie, can your device be modified to detect fluorine in drinking water?"

Alternatively, simply naming something and letting us see what it does is a good approach. We don't know how phasers work, but we've seen what they do in earlier episodes, so when someone says, "I've got a phaser," we know what they are capable of.

These are examples of speculation and extrapolation.

In the future we may or may not acquire unbreakable spaceship hulls. But it's worth writing about them because they enable us to tell new stories. Larry Niven's Neutron Star would not have worked as well if the spaceship had merely had a "fairly strong" hull.

If Niven's stories were all about spaceship fights ("Will my irresistible beam cut through the impenetrable hull?") then they would be no better than superhero stories. But they are not about that.

Is luck a biologically-based trait? Almost certainly not. But the question is an interesting one, and SF exists to ask questions - and it doesn't matter if the answer is no.

Steampunk - I consider those parallel world stories, ones where the divergence in history was technological, at the height of the steam age.