Yes, this is a serious book about the engineering challenges that would need to be overcome to develop teleportation technology. It sounds farfetched of course, but it seems well reasoned and well-presented. What bothers me is that David Darling does not envision teleportation as the sort portrayed in Star Trek... where a person's atoms are converted to energy, transmitted over some distance, and then reconverted back into their original form. I like the Star Trek idea, because it allows one to retain a sense that the guy "beamed" down to the planet is still the original guy who used to be standing up there in the Enterprise. (the atoms are the same, they just changed form temporarily, and then changed back)In contrast, David Darling envisions a system where the original traveler is essentially destroyed, analyzed, and then a "perfect" copy is reassembled at a distant site, using atoms available at the destination. In my mind, this feels more like the original guy was killed and now his artificial twin (made of entirely different atoms) is walking around. Darling acknowledges this, but brushes off the philosophical questions, essentially asking "What's the difference?" The difference is that I definitely WOULD NOT go for traveling in Darling's version of teleportation! If he's going to dream big enough to envision teleportation as a reality, why doesn't he dream big enough to go for the kind that doesn't kill you?Interesting side note: it may be that teleportation technology never comes to pass, but apparently some basic research done to explore the feasibility of teleportation has resulted in what is now the most advanced encryption technology available. Hooray for unintended benefits!