There is a subforum on these boards that is testament to how wrong some films (as well as TV shows and novels etc.) get their science. In some cases it is downright inexcusable, as if these were portrayed correctly, it would not inhibit the storytelling, or make the desired events or elements, impossible. In other cases, especially in science fiction, certain established facts or laws are knowingly broken in order to 'make things work'. Star Trek, for example, is full of these.

Star Trek, and other sci-fi 'universes', also contain some things that may be possible, in a theoretical sense, but are in no way certain or proven through accomplishment. Some are simply impractical, beyond the means of anything but an unthinkably advanced civilization or entity, with others requiring more effort or energy than would be feasible, or sensible.

I've been working on a particular science fiction story for some time now, in which faster than light travel is an element. I've chosen the path of devising something that sounds like it could work, but in reality, probably could not, when it comes to the method of travel. I've had certain elements of this system of travel that I knew I wanted to include, but couldn't quite fit them together in a way that I liked, or found sufficiently acceptable from a scientific standpoint. Until today that is. I think I may have found what I'm looking for, and I want to run it by the minds here - sort ofa pseudo-science peer review, since I know many of the readers of this forum are well versed in the area in question.

For the longest time, the concept I was most fascinated with, and wanted to make a part of my method of travel, was the uncertainty principle. In most of my efforts to fabricate a drive system, I found myself taking (to most) obscure concepts, ones that are not to be applied to the macroscopic world of spaceships, and doing so - often in combination - to result in something that has enough of a thread of reasonability to be acceptable to the moderately educated reader. Physicists and many other scientists would probably be quite unimpressed by the smoke and mirrors, but they're a pretty hard bunch to impress in this regard regardless.

So, the uncertainty principle states that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely it's momentum (mass times velocity) is known. This always conjured up lovely images of what is for some, the classic 'probability drive' - one could nail down the momentum of a macroscopic object, and thus have it's position become uncertain...existing in any number of places, potentially a place one wishes to travel to...and then reduce that certainty in something akin to a breaking maneuver, having the object return to normal existence in a new location. Of course, how exactly that could be done is one problem. The difference between the information about a particle's position being less accurate, and the actual location of an object being a variable, is another. Still, it has a certain charm, and has always been one of my favorites.

Indeed, following various experiments with einstein-bose condensates, the idea became somewhat less ludicrous, and one could imagine ways could be found to exploit these curious behaviors at the atomic level.

The other idea is nail down the position, and have it's mass/velocity be uncertain. Of course, uncertain doesn't mean zero mass or infinite velocity, but in the realm of pseudo-science, it was something to work with.

Still, it didn't seem like quite enough. After a while I began to think about the new ideas about the nature, one might say 'texture' of space - frothy was one word often used - as well as string theory, d-branes, m-branes and the whole zoo of ideas about the universe at that level. Suddenly there seemed to be a lot more cracks in the foundation of what we called space to exploit, if one could just find a way to do it.

Today, I began thinking about what would happen if an object were completely, and abruptly, removed from normal space. The image that kept coming to mind was that of a large bolide burning through the atmosphere and impacting one of earth's oceans, with the resulting pressure vaporization and 'vacuum' - both along the trail through the atmosphere and in the ocean at the impact site.

In the case of a comet or other object, it is thought that the pressure difference between the front (high) and the back (low) of an object of the appropriate density would cause it to be torn apart in an explosion. I wondered if something similar might occur, under the necessary conditions, to space itself - we call space a vacuum, but in truth even though it is in many places very low density, there is still matter out there. What if the fabric of space could be torn by manipulting it in a way which would produce an effect similar to that of a pressure vaccum...

Or, there is the related idea of when matter rushes into areas of lower density/pressure - like would be the case in an ocean impact, or explosive decompression as seen in many a science-fiction movie. People refer to it as being 'sucked out' into space, but it's actually more like being 'blown out'. Same effect in any case. Could something similar happen to space itself?

As an aside, this idea has come to mind recently as well in the context of the rate of expansion of the universe, and the discovery of the so-called anti-gravity force. While the idea of a cosmological constant was once laughable and may now be less so, it was probably never as laughable as the idea that something akin to the pressure stress concept being applied on such a scale. The universe is not expanding as a discrete object in space as a comet might move through an atmosphere...there is no void or uber-vacuum at the edge of the universe pulling on the border as it slows down due to it's own gravity, resulting in a greater difference in the two forces - and like a star that has lost it's balance between outward pressure and gravity, but in reverse, is exploding or being torn outward. The idea is counter to the nature of things as we know them, but it does have a certain simple-minded charm to it.

Anyway, back to the sudden void created in the fabric of space. Would it be refilled somehow, like a void created in the ocean - where water would rush back to fill the emptiness? Would space itself be the patch? If so, what effects might this have on the matter in that space, and how might that be exploited?

This got me thinking on the crazy idea I came up with today. Something I had to give a name in my head, which for now I've called a Quantum Chromo-Dynamic Displacement Cascade - something developed in 'Project Quicksand'. Essentially, using the concepts involved in einstein-bose condensation, the uncertainty principle and it's application in making possible the above-mentioned spacial voids, it allows for near-instantaneous from one point in space to another. I'm going to have work on the idea to make it believable enough to use for the drive system in this story, but I wanted some feedback before going too far down that road. If the science-minded people here can't accept it, then I'll have a good idea of where the upper-limit of the criticism will be.

So roughly, this is what would happen. A ship would isolate not just itself, but the immediate space - section of space, literally - it is occupying - from the rest of the universe. This would be done using some BEC-related generated field. At the moment of 'removal', a void would be created in the fabric of space. Due to the method this void was created, the incremental cascade effect would cause the void to be filled in discreet quanta from a specific direction. The way this would work in practice is best illustrated by this visualization.

Picture a glass box filled with sand. The sand has been pour in from one side, so that you have what amounts to a slope, from the upper left down to the lower right. At the lower right, on the bottom of the slop, is a hole with a stopper - something like you see in some sink drains, where the stopper actually lowers into the drain, allowing the water to pass downwards, until the stopper is raised to block the drain. The stopper is lowered, sand begins to fill the whole. Due to the way particles of sand (and snow) behave in these circumstances, it would 'slide' down into the hole, down the slope, with sand further up the slope taking the place of the sand that has now left the slope - disappearing into the hole. Once the hole is restopped, the sand on the slope with continue to distribute itself according to the laws of physics, until a static state is achieved once again.

In terms of the 'quicksand' drive system, the ship and the space immediately around it within the generated field is the stopper. It exits normal space, leaving the hole. It does this, not literally in a certain 'direction', but the equivalent of same, which allows the direction from which the 'sand' of space to flow or slide into the hole.

Now, here's where things get tricky. In order for this to work (even as the insane pseudo-scientific idea it is), the ship needs to be able to have some method of control, and be able to re-emerge from wherever it was, in the exact place it was meant to travel to. This is done, in theory, because the sand of space, as it slides to fill the void left at the ship's departure point, does so in a measurable and predictable way - and while doing so, leaves a moving void of it's own, at the very top edge of the sliding 'slope of sand'. The ship 'simply' maintains the field - creating the 'size' of the hole that needs to be filled - until the void that is created at the top edge of the 'slope' is where it desires to travel to. Then through a mechanism I haven't quite figured out yet, it pops back into normal space in that location. Tada!

Now, very few of these details would be manifest were this a feature film, perhaps there would be some token exposition to give some vague idea how it were done, but it would not be necessary. The general public accepts FTL travel in movies, for the most part, simply assuming that there is some way to do it - in theory. Hyperspace, warp drive, wormholes...you name it. Depending on the form this story eventually takes, this level of fabricated detail may not be necessary, but I'd like to at least attempt to explain it - if only for the purposes of explaining it outside the story itself. The ideas involved are also interesting in and of themselves I think, crazy as they may be.

So...if anyone has actually read all of that - any ideas or comments? Is a Quantum Chromo-Dynamic Displacement Cascade Drive (QCDDCD?) too 'thin' to be acceptable, or is there enough vague fact for it to fly?

Allow me to announce right now I'm by no means a scientist of any sort, just trying to apply my own unique brand of common sense to fun theories.

The idea is intriguing but you still face the problems faced by drive systems such as in Star Trek's "warp drive".

1) Dust and other particles can cause great damage at high speeds, necessitating some sort of shield system
2) Detailed pre-flight navigation must be done to avoid high speed collision with known bodies.
3) Inertial forces caused by any sort of lateral motion would be *intense* at high speeds and must be compensated for.

I get two distinct impressions from your description and am having the following problem: I'm failing to understand if your ship will be in essence sliding through normal space, pushed by the "replenishment" of spacetime behind the vehicle, or if it's the ship itself that can leave normal space and then reappear again at a different location.

If the latter *is* the case, however, I don't understand why--if the vessel is capable of doing so--it doesn't just do it *once*; leaving where it starts, and ending up at it's final destination rather than only a short distance away. You could say that it's only capable of "folding space" like that over short distances, but if this is the case, the "sliding in" ideas are totally unnecessary.

That is my pseudo-scientific take on it.

Thanks for the response. It is the latter case, so the issues you mentioned would not be there. As for the 'at once' issue, it does indeed do that. The increments mentioned related to the proposed need for the sliding of space itself - not the ship through space, or 'underneath space' - to occur in quanta. While I suppose that aspect is not necessary in terms of the theory, space - and the exit/entry 'void' - could slide in one piece from the departure point to the destination point, the intention was for that requirement to double as the solution to the 'targetting' problem, as mentioned here:

"In order for this to work (even as the insane pseudo-scientific idea it is), the ship needs to be able to have some method of control, and be able to re-emerge from wherever it was, in the exact place it was meant to travel to. This is done, in theory, because the sand of space, as it slides to fill the void left at the ship's departure point, does so in a measurable and predictable way - and while doing so, leaves a moving void of it's own, at the very top edge of the sliding 'slope of sand'. The ship 'simply' maintains the field - creating the 'size' of the hole that needs to be filled - until the void that is created at the top edge of the 'slope' is where it desires to travel to."

So the idea is that the movement of the void - as space shifts to fill it - is predictable, directly related to the amount of time the ship maintains it's field. When the ship turns the field on, it slips out of space - when it turns it back on, it slips back in - at the destination point. The orientation - the direction - of the 'slippage' would be determined by the orientation of the field when it is activated. Assuming that the field could do what it is supposed to do, and that space would behave as described, this latter aspect would provide the necessary control. In theory.

So what would the distance of it's ability to "warp" be?

LOL, I get a mental image of playing interstellar hopscotch using short-distance spacewarps.

I do get what you're saying, but it wouldn't be "sliding" as I am seeing this per se, it'd be more of a "swap" between the initial position and final position of each "hop". Therefore your vessel could theoretically travel through a solid body as it would always be having itself plus an area of empty space being swapped for whatever was in its path.

But the question stands to ask.. if the warp direction is able to be controlled.. why not extend it 5 feet? 10 feet? 10 km? 10MM km?

I will not address the specifics of the "science," as I have no education in such things. However, as a (would-be) writer, I have a few comments.

1. The thing does not appear to "fly" through space - it teleports.

2. If it teleports, why do you need a ship? Just build a colony on Earth (or where ever), then activate the central power supply and teleport the colony to Mars (or where ever).

3. Use shuttles (or what ever) to build science stations in orbit (for zero-g considerations in construction), then teleport the station to where ever you want to establish a long-term observation post.

4. As far as "replacement material," the local stuff would (normally) fill in the void, but you might want to toy with the idea of the "displaced stuff" at the destination somehow being teleported backwards to fill in the void. At least *that* would explain why you would want to use a ship in space rather than teleport directly from a habitable surface.