How does subspace communication move messages without warping space?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I used to consider that as one possible handwave, but it wasn't what I ultimately went with. I suppose it wouldn't be so regular if it were the case, since the density of dust particles varies from place to place. Also, in an Alcubierre warp metric, impinging particles wouldn't "fly by" but would embed in the front of the warp bubble -- and when you came out of warp, they'd blast forward of the ship as high-intensity cosmic rays, so you'd better not come out pointing directly at anything.

But you're going with the assumption that the Warp Drive in ST is the Alcubierre Warp Drive.
I'm going by the assumption that it's slightly off and it's own thing.
So what we expect could be different.

Except that the FX crews of TOS and its movies sometimes forgot themselves and did the moving-stars effect when the ship was at sublight.

It wouldn't be the first time in Trek History that there are VFX errors.

Remember the Enterprise-D firing Phasers out of it's Photon Torpedo Bays.

Or D'Deridexes firing Plasma Beams out of it's Deflector Dish.

A transwarp conduit, yes, but it was never clearly explained what a "quantum slipstream" even was.

It was shunting the ship into the Quantum Realm to attain FTL.
It's visual portrayal was interesting since it was a Blue Version of the Transwarp Conduit VFX.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Fiction is not authoritarian dogma. It's creative expression.

While that's true, but I tend to respect the past Authors who created __ work and follow their leads when it makes sense.
Don't just interject whatever I feel like because I can and change things just to suit my own whims.
That's part of "Playing Nicely" within a larger Franchise filled with other creative folks who made things.
Respect what they did and what they contributed.
Eventually, this grand Franchise will be passed down to the "Next Generation" of Creative Folks who will participate in it and add to the "Wider / Grander Star Trek Lore".
The entire point is to make everything work together through-out time so that the Franchise can sustain itself WELL beyond our life-times so that other Creatives can add to it.

Artists have every right to choose to express themselves however they wish.

True, but usually in a work that's gone on past any individual creator and has had countless hands mixed in, I'd err to the side of deference to the past creators unless it's a Full Blown Reboot.
The Past and what it did has meaning IMO, I don't want to trample on their work just to suit my own creative ego.
Otherwise, create your own unique work and do whatever you want.
That's how I interpret things and how I operate.
Maybe it's the Asian side of me, but that's how I see things for existing franchises that I don't own and only want to participate and play in.
Contribute my ideas to add to it, but never take anything away from any Pre-Existing work.

It's absurd to talk about a work of make-believe as if there were some single "right" way of doing it. You're not studying for a test, for pity's sake. There's no "right answer." There are just creative people exercising their imaginations. All you have to do to reconcile their different interpretations is to use your own imagination. (Seriously, I'd think someone who names himself after a Kamen Rider would be fully aware of how flexible fictional reality can be.)

You still have to respect all those who came before you, including Shotaro Ishinomori.
Yes, with each new Kamen Rider, you can do new things, but what you generally can't do is trample on previous Riders works w/o good reason to make any changes.
And Permanent Changes to older KR content isn't allowed generally.
So it's easy to be "Addititve", it's far harder to be "Subtractive".
You should've easily known this by now given how much Tokusatsu both you & I follow.

Also, it's spelled "free rein." It's a horse-riding metaphor, meaning to let up on the reins and let the horse go where it wishes.

My bad, spelling mistake, I'll go fix it.

 

[Christopher]

But you're going with the assumption that the Warp Drive in ST is the Alcubierre Warp Drive.

No, I'm just expanding the conversation to include a discussion of what science tells us about warp drive, to place the discussion in context. If the goal is to apply scientific thinking to the fantasy of Trek warp drive, then it makes sense to consider it in the context of what real science says. That's not "assumption," it's simply a step in the analytical process.

I'm going by the assumption that it's slightly off and it's own thing.
So what we expect could be different.

I've done the same thing in my professional Trek novels. But if you make a specific proposal, then it can be evaluated for its plausibility and self-consistency. I've already explained why a "burning dust" explanation wouldn't fit what we see onscreen, because the amount of dust would not be as uniform and consistent as the warp effect, and because there would be nothing visible behind the ship since it would be outracing the light.

It wouldn't be the first time in Trek History that there are VFX errors.

Which is the point. Whether due to error or deliberate creative choice, inconsistencies happen and should be understood as extradiegetic differences in depiction rather than diegetic changes in the technology itself.

It was shunting the ship into the Quantum Realm to attain FTL.

You're confusing it with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There was no mention of a "Quantum Realm" in Voyager's quantum slipstream episodes, only quantum fields and a "quantum barrier." And that was just gibberish. Sci-fi likes to use "quantum" as a magic handwavey word for weirdness, but all physics is quantum physics. The transistors and semiconductors and diodes and fiber optics that are allowing us to have this conversation operate according to quantum physics. So do the chemical processes in our brains and bodies. In quantum terminology, a realm is simply an observational frame of reference.

Besides, Marvel's Quantum Realm is meant to be the subatomic-scale world, where everything is so tiny that quantum effects are manifest, although it's interpreted fancifully as having its own micro-universe and inhabitants. Nothing about quantum slipstream suggests that it miniaturizes the ship in any way.

While that's true, but I tend to respect the past Authors who created __ work and follow their leads when it makes sense.

It's the prerogative of new creators to decide whether and how much they choose to follow their predecessors' lead. A lot of very popular Trek designs are changes from the original designs -- TNG warp stars, ridged Klingons, the style of Starfleet tech introduced in TMP and carried forward into TNG and the sequel series, etc.

Don't just interject whatever I feel like because I can and change things just to suit my own whims.
That's part of "Playing Nicely" within a larger Franchise filled with other creative folks who made things.
Respect what they did and what they contributed.

Respect doesn't require slavish copying. Andrew Probert's TMP Enterprise design paid homage to Matt Jefferies's design while still transforming it. Indeed, I think most artists would feel it's far more respectful for a successor to create their own new version inspired by the original than it would be merely to copy the original. It's generally considered disrespectful to directly copy someone else's words, appearance, behavior, etc., so why should it be respectful to merely copy someone else's creative work rather than doing your own work inspired by it?

Eventually, this grand Franchise will be passed down to the "Next Generation" of Creative Folks who will participate in it and add to the "Wider / Grander Star Trek Lore".

It already has been a few times now.

The entire point is to make everything work together through-out time so that the Franchise can sustain itself WELL beyond our life-times so that other Creatives can add to it.

Which is exactly why it's good to let new artists update and evolve it rather than trap it in the past.

You still have to respect all those who came before you, including Shotaro Ishinomori.
Yes, with each new Kamen Rider, you can do new things, but what you generally can't do is trample on previous Riders works w/o good reason to make any changes.
And Permanent Changes to older KR content isn't allowed generally.
So it's easy to be "Addititve", it's far harder to be "Subtractive".

I think we've drifted off the subject. I'm just saying that warp-drive designs are matters of artistic choice rather than in-universe physics, so you can't assume that two similar-looking warp effects represent a similar technology or that two different effects represent different technologies. Whether you believe artists should change past designs is beside the point; the objective fact on the table is that they already have, and that reality needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the fiction. Conclusions about the world should be based on objective reality, not on how we wish things were.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

No, I'm just expanding the conversation to include a discussion of what science tells us about warp drive, to place the discussion in context. If the goal is to apply scientific thinking to the fantasy of Trek warp drive, then it makes sense to consider it in the context of what real science says. That's not "assumption," it's simply a step in the analytical process.

Fair enough, but there are enough behavioral differences with what we see in Trek's interpretation of Warp Drive & Alcubierre's version that I would consider Trek it's own thing that has touches of Alcubierres.

I've done the same thing in my professional Trek novels. But if you make a specific proposal, then it can be evaluated for its plausibility and self-consistency. I've already explained why a "burning dust" explanation wouldn't fit what we see onscreen, because the amount of dust would not be as uniform and consistent as the warp effect, and because there would be nothing visible behind the ship since it would be outracing the light.

I wouldn't treat it as "Burning Dust", more like Shimmering Particles, nothing gets burned.

Which is the point. Whether due to error or deliberate creative choice, inconsistencies happen and should be understood as extradiegetic differences in depiction rather than diegetic changes in the technology itself.

Which is why I go for the vast majority of consistent depictions.

You're confusing it with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There was no mention of a "Quantum Realm" in Voyager's quantum slipstream episodes, only quantum fields and a "quantum barrier." And that was just gibberish. Sci-fi likes to use "quantum" as a magic handwavey word for weirdness, but all physics is quantum physics. The transistors and semiconductors and diodes and fiber optics that are allowing us to have this conversation operate according to quantum physics. So do the chemical processes in our brains and bodies. In quantum terminology, a realm is simply an observational frame of reference.

Besides, Marvel's Quantum Realm is meant to be the subatomic-scale world, where everything is so tiny that quantum effects are manifest, although it's interpreted fancifully as having its own micro-universe and inhabitants. Nothing about quantum slipstream suggests that it miniaturizes the ship in any way.

Trek's version is obviously different from Marvel. The Quantum Slip Stream Drive is it's own thing. The QSS Tunnel seems to be outside standard 'Normal Space'.
"Quantum Realm" is a simple term for whatever realm the QSS Tunnel seems to exist in, if you have a better name, by all means.
Marvel's Quantum Realm has nothing to do with Trek's Quantum Realm.
Each is it's own thing.

It's the prerogative of new creators to decide whether and how much they choose to follow their predecessors' lead. A lot of very popular Trek designs are changes from the original designs -- TNG warp stars, ridged Klingons, the style of Starfleet tech introduced in TMP and carried forward into TNG and the sequel series, etc.

True, each new creator gets to make their choice. I concur with that.
Some choose to respect the past in the way I describe.
Some others choose to decide to do their own thing.
That's going to happen, regardless.
We're all very different people and will make different decisions.

Respect doesn't require slavish copying. Andrew Probert's TMP Enterprise design paid homage to Matt Jefferies's design while still transforming it.

Yes, but the new vessel was supposed to be a evolution of the original, so he had work to do to improve on it.

Indeed, I think most artists would feel it's far more respectful for a successor to create their own new version inspired by the original than it would be merely to copy the original. It's generally considered disrespectful to directly copy someone else's words, appearance, behavior, etc., so why should it be respectful to merely copy someone else's creative work rather than doing your own work inspired by it?

Depends on what aspect of the World you Copy.
If it's a StarShip, I'm definitely going to change things in terms of how it's built, the shape, the equipment on it, etc.
If it's the Warp VFX, I've decided to keep it the same as the TNG era since my Head-Cannon is directly derived off of it.
But I'm also adding in almost ALL of the previous FTL drives beyond Warp Drive.
Yes that includes Spore Drive and it's limitations to Spore Jumping.

So everybody chooses to do things differently.
I have my reasons for why I choose certain things, I'm sure you do as well.

It already has been a few times now.

Yup, exactly, and it will continue to do so as long as their is interest in Star Trek moving forwards in time.

Which is exactly why it's good to let new artists update and evolve it rather than trap it in the past.

I concur, but there are things that I like keeping traditional and things I plan on evolving.
That's my PoV, you're entitled to do things differently with your works.
Heck, I even included a few bits of your works into my Head Canon.

I think we've drifted off the subject. I'm just saying that warp-drive designs are matters of artistic choice rather than in-universe physics, so you can't assume that two similar-looking warp effects represent a similar technology or that two different effects represent different technologies.

I never assumed they were different technologies, they were all "Warp Drive".
Just the VFX portrayal seems to change too much between Generations.
I want to standardize on what I thought was a very good portrayal with the TNG era's version.

Whether you believe artists should change past designs is beside the point; the objective fact on the table is that they already have, and that reality needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the fiction.

I know, both sides have been implemented.
TNG-era Warp VFX has been executed in the modern context.
Star Wars Hyper-Space tunnel has also been executed in the modern context as well.

I'm just expressing my preference, that's all.
Both are still Warp Drive at the end of the day.

Conclusions about the world should be based on objective reality, not on how we wish things were.

The objective reality is that there are multiple VFX types for the same FTL drive based on which work chooses to do which implementation.
It changes often enough that there isn't one "Guranteed Answer".
Just like the Transporter VFX has changed over time.

It's fine that other artists wants to change it, but for me, I would prefer it to be consistent and move onto different VFX for different FTL drives.
There are plenty of room for multiple VFX types to protray the various FTL Drives.

In my Head Canon in the 26th Century, there are 17x Currently Known methods of going FTL.
That means 17x different methods to break the Speed of Light Barrier and cross over Time & Space to where you want to go.
That's PLENTY of opportunity for FTL VFX fun.
I plan on using all 17x different methods.
Only 1 of the 17 was a original FTL drive from me, the other 16 already existed within Star Trek.
I just plan on using them all along side their various inherent limitations.

 

[Christopher]

Marvel's Quantum Realm has nothing to do with Trek's Quantum Realm.

That's just the point, there is no "Trek's Quantum Realm." Trek has quantum realities, a way of referring to alternate timelines, but the phrase "Quantum Realm" has never been used in Trek, certainly not capitalized. That term is specific to the MCU. (It's called the Microverse in Marvel Comics.)

As it happens, quantum theory does use the term "observational realm" or "macrorealm" to refer to what's vernacularly called a parallel timeline, which is why I refer to timelines as realms in my Tangent Knights audiobook trilogy, but every timeline is a realm by that usage, including ours. And it's not a term that Star Trek uses, certainly not in reference to quantum slipstream drive.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That's just the point, there is no "Trek's Quantum Realm." Trek has quantum realities, a way of referring to alternate timelines, but the phrase "Quantum Realm" has never been used in Trek, certainly not capitalized. That term is specific to the MCU. (It's called the Microverse in Marvel Comics.)

As it happens, quantum theory does use the term "observational realm" or "macrorealm" to refer to what's vernacularly called a parallel timeline, which is why I refer to timelines as realms in my Tangent Knights audiobook trilogy, but every timeline is a realm by that usage, including ours. And it's not a term that Star Trek uses, certainly not in reference to quantum slipstream drive.

Ok, what do you want to call the Region of Space that QSS happens to travel in, which observationally isn't in our "Normal Space".
I'm assuming it'll be Quantum ____.
I'm sure you have ideas, we can easily workshop the name.

 

[Christopher]

Ok, what do you want to call the Region of Space that QSS happens to travel in, which observationally isn't in our "Normal Space".
I'm assuming it'll be Quantum ____.
I'm sure you have ideas, we can easily workshop the name.

As I already said, I'm no fan of the tendency of soft sci-fi to use "quantum" as a magic-word prefix for any arbitrary weird thing. Again, all physics is quantum physics. Classical physics is just an approximation of quantum physics for large ensembles of particles. Quantum physics isn't some mysterious alien thing, it's the foundation of the technology we use every day, and of the chemical reactions within our own bodies. Calling something "quantum" just means it operates on the level of subatomic particles, the scale at which matter and energy cease to appear continuous and become more granular.

I don't buy the premise that quantum slipstream involves any special "region of space" of the sort you're talking about. They said in "Hope and Fear" that it's similar to a transwarp conduit, and a transwarp conduit is similar to a wormhole. So presumably they all involve similar modifications of the topology of spacetime to create shortcuts. They just do it in different ways.

For my TNG novel Greater than the Sum, I came up with the explanation that QS drive worked by manipulating the quantum-scale structure of spacetime. As I had Geordi La Forge put it, "If warp is analog, slipstream is digital. Warp uses large amounts of energy to reshape spacetime on a macroscopic scale. Quantum slipstream changes the parameters of each little bit of spacetime discretely to create the curvature you want. That greater precision lets you do more with less energy -- the tradeoff being that you need immensely more computing power and control to pull it off safely." This was my explanation for why it was so difficult in "Timeless" to maintain a stable vortex.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

As I already said, I'm no fan of the tendency of soft sci-fi to use "quantum" as a magic-word prefix for any arbitrary weird thing.

Fair enough, but we're just giving a old existing FTL system a apt label.

Again, all physics is quantum physics. Classical physics is just an approximation of quantum physics for large ensembles of particles. Quantum physics isn't some mysterious alien thing, it's the foundation of the technology we use every day, and of the chemical reactions within our own bodies. Calling something "quantum" just means it operates on the level of subatomic particles, the scale at which matter and energy cease to appear continuous and become more granular.

True, but that's what is necessary to make this tech work.

I don't buy the premise that quantum slipstream involves any special "region of space" of the sort you're talking about. They said in "Hope and Fear" that it's similar to a transwarp conduit, and a transwarp conduit is similar to a wormhole. So presumably they all involve similar modifications of the topology of spacetime to create shortcuts. They just do it in different ways.

Then how about "Quantum Tunnel"?

For my TNG novel Greater than the Sum, I came up with the explanation that QS drive worked by manipulating the quantum-scale structure of spacetime. As I had Geordi La Forge put it, "If warp is analog, slipstream is digital. Warp uses large amounts of energy to reshape spacetime on a macroscopic scale. Quantum slipstream changes the parameters of each little bit of spacetime discretely to create the curvature you want. That greater precision lets you do more with less energy -- the tradeoff being that you need immensely more computing power and control to pull it off safely." This was my explanation for why it was so difficult in "Timeless" to maintain a stable vortex.

It's not just computing power that was a issue, they were fighting the immense pressure forces inside the Tunnel that affected the SIF (Structural Integrity Field) over time.
The hard limit was keeping the SIF active before the pressure forces crushed the vessel's structure.
So you had a hard time limit based on how strong your vessels SIF Generators are.
Which is a nice way to limit how long you can use QSS before you need to pause for a bit within Normal Space and Re-Charge the SIF Shield Generators.

SIF is one of the Shield Generators where there usually isn't redundant systems, unlike Normal Shields systems in my 26th Century Head Canon where Normal Shield Systems have Multiple Units for Redundancy during regular combat. That's one of the major Doctrinal improvements within StarFleet. Multiple Shield Layers + Multiple Shield Systems.
This turns Space Combat from a short thing to a very long Pro Wrestling match in terms of typical combat time durations.

 

[Christopher]

It's not just computing power that was a issue, they were fighting the immense pressure forces inside the Tunnel that affected the SIF (Structural Integrity Field) over time.

Cause and effect of the same problem, I'd say. The computing power is needed to manipulate spacetime on a quantum scale to create the desired spacetime metric. If you can't maintain the metric, the conduit destabilizes and threatens to collapse, which would put great pressure on the ship within it.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Cause and effect of the same problem, I'd say. The computing power is needed to manipulate spacetime on a quantum scale to create the desired spacetime metric. If you can't maintain the metric, the conduit destabilizes and threatens to collapse, which would put great pressure on the ship within it.

From what I saw on Voyager, they were able to do the calculations just fine, they just needed "More Time" to do the calculations.

But regular operations kept draining the SIF bit by bit while they were traveling at vast speeds.

So I figure it's one of the down-sides of traveling via QSS.

Nothing is perfect, but it's a fair limitation for a HUGE gain w/o the massive energy cost of using Warp Drive.

 

[Christopher]

From what I saw on Voyager, they were able to do the calculations just fine, they just needed "More Time" to do the calculations.

Well, yes, that's the point. It wouldn't take so much time if it weren't immensely complicated. And I had to come up with a rationale for the name "quantum slipstream" that made some shred of sense in the context of what "quantum" actually means, rather than reducing it to a nonsense buzzword for exotic weirdness.