Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Star Trek Holodeck

  1. Jun 29, 2016 #1

    gva

    User Avatar

    What happened to the Holodecks in the lastest Star Trek installments?

    A million years from now.. would it be possible to build Holodecks? Is it connected with whether realism is true or violated (such as in entanglement)? Because if realism or particles existing before measurements didn't exist.. then does this makes more possibility the creation of holodecks in the future (or at least makes the Star Trek Holodeck more plausible)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2016 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Perhaps it's just a lack of knowledge on my part but I can't imagine what possible connection there could be between entanglement and/or realism and holodeck technology, which, if I understand correctly, is just holograms.
     
  4. Jun 29, 2016 #3

    gva

    User Avatar

    Star Trek Holodecks are not just holograms.. they were made of real chair and tables that you could touch. They could create the particles at will.. this means realism or the particles existing before measurement won't offer much flexibility because you can't store the particles in a container and release them to create the chair and tables.. It is better if the Star Trek ship uses technology to materialize the wave function into physicality.. remember the Holodecks are physical and solid that you can interact..
     
  5. Jun 29, 2016 #4

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I can't follow your logic at all
     
  6. Jun 29, 2016 #5

    gva

    User Avatar

    If particles exist before measurements.. they weigh a lot of tons.... but if particles don't exist before measurement.. they don't weight a thing.. For example. You want to bring an aircraft carrier to the moon. In realism, you need a large spaceship to hold the aircraft carrier. But in anti-realism. The Star Trek Enterprise advanced technology can phase transform the aircraft carrier into formula (like maybe pilot wave or whatever it is).. put it in the spacetime quantum container.. and then precipitate it back into materiality in another planet. Therefore anti-realism holds great flexibility in science fiction.. you get my point now?
     
  7. Jun 30, 2016 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    None of what you say is supported by conventional physics.
    None of what you say is supported by the television show.
    None of what you say makes sense.
     
  8. Jun 30, 2016 #7

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Ah. I see. I had no idea your comments were based so far out of touch with reality. I second Vanadium's comments and recommend that you study some actual quantum mechanics to help dispel your misconceptions.
     
  9. Jun 30, 2016 #8

    gva

    User Avatar

    Of course I know in conventional physics, things can't do as I said.. but we are in science fiction thread.

    I think I read in the "Physics of Star Trek" that the holodeck were really solid objects because people there can interact or sit on the things, so I thought they should contain atoms too.

    "Beam me up scotty" it's common in science fiction.. so I'm just saying if we deny realism its better to explain in science fiction books or movies...
     
  10. Jun 30, 2016 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    My comment was a response to your belief that particles do not exist until measured and for that, all of Vanadium's comments apply as well.
     
  11. Jun 30, 2016 #10
    There is always Abed's Dreamatorium. If you study that concept closely, I believe you'll find an achievable type of holodeck. Limited only by your imagination, it could contain all kinds of wonderful things - like Inspector Spacetime for example! Cool, cool, cool....
     
  12. Jul 7, 2016 #11
    the holodeck is kind of a flexible version of the fabricator it creates solid items within a holographic environment those items could be generic material for form and solidity with a projected finish. the problem would be how to transition from one object to another seamlessly. example it creates the rocks for a cliff you want to climb as you are going up it has to keep adding new solid while removing whats below and maintaining its presence virtually. the other big problem is if there is substance to the items you can climb to the ceiling unless it somehow keeps the objects in motion moving you away from the walls and ceiling which would give people motion sickness.
     
  13. Jul 8, 2016 #12
    The holodecks are not creating particles. There was an entire episode where the ship became semi-sentient and a character demanded to be set free from the holodeck. They said it was impossible because it's not actual matter. They even tried to beam objects from the holodeck to the transporter because it had different technology that did produce matter. They mention that it's just force fields and holograms, nothing more.

    As for why it's not in the new installments, my guess would be that the new ones are based off of the original series and the Holodeck was not introduced until TNG, which took place like 70 years later.

    I find it unlikely according to the laws of physics that something like that is possible. Holograms probably, but not force fields in that sense. I also think we'll be more inward focused and our VR will be more like the matrix than the holodeck.
     
  14. Jul 8, 2016 #13
    If I recall correctly, in the show they say the holodeck matter isn't permanent, or even truly solid. They refer to holodeck objects being created using "photons and forcefields." This is something that comes up when Picard is trying to explain the holodeck to the Moriarty AI and it is mentioned several times by the Doctor on Voyager. Indeed, in some cases the Doctor and other characters like him are referred to as "photonics." The Doctor has also warned an alien foe on at least one occasion that attempts to harm him physically would be futile because of his holographic nature. In First Contact the Borg try to scan a holodeck character only to find out the scan goes right through him as his image wavers and distorts.
    In actual reality atoms never truly touch each other, so one might expect in the case of the fictional holodeck items could be made "real" enough just by employing forcefields and photons. http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2013/04/16/do-atoms-ever-actually-touch-each-other/
    The holodeck is certainly depicted as a clever imitator, but when Picard tosses the book out of the holodeck doorway it doesn't degenerate into a pile of goo - it simply bursts into light and ceases to exist. This is his evidence to Moriarty that the body of a holodeck character has no actual substance.
    I think the what the OP might be postulating here is more along the lines of a mass replicator. While the replicator is no doubt integrated into the holodeck to a degree (I would assume the wine and cheese Picard would consume in We'll Always Have Paris is genuine replicated food placed into the simulation) the buildings and characters would be of the photon and forcefield variety. Picard couldn't cannibalize the waiter's leg, for example, because there's no actual meat to consume.
    However, as I've mentioned, the Dreamatorium can overcome all of those limitations - http://community-sitcom.wikia.com/wiki/Dreamatorium
     
  15. Jul 8, 2016 #14
    Good and dark point lol. I never thought about the times people had food or drink inside the holodeck. Occasionally, crew would also leave with items such as clothing or weapons they've selected.
     
  16. Jul 8, 2016 #15
    Yes, clothing as well. In the case of Worf I always assumed he brought his own weapons. For clothing it seemed to me that they replicated what they needed ahead of time, sometimes at the last minute like Lily's dress in First Contact.
     
  17. Jul 8, 2016 #16
    yeah I do remember the force field explanation from TNG its pretty much the same concept without solid particles would be more fluid especially for NPC's just not sure how well a force field chair would simulate different materials like the difference between a wood bench and a steel one. it does help solve the projection problem solid's would create.
    now for the problem I've yet to hear anyone bring up if you spend a lot of time in a projection room like that how much would it hurt peoples eyes?
     
  18. Jul 9, 2016 #17

    OCR

    User Avatar

    That episode was... Elementary, Dear Data .[COLOR=#black]...[/COLOR] :oldsmile:

    The follow up, and I think better episode, when the sentient character, Professor James Moriarty tried to leave the holodeck was...[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]Ship in a Bottle .

    That's the episode where Picard tells Moriarty, that it might be possible to beam him off the holodeck if they decoupled the Heisenberg compensators ...[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]:oldcool:
    The holodeck ...[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]:oldwink:

    Also here ...
     
  19. Jul 11, 2016 #18
    OCR's quote - "can create both "solid" props"

    I think the reason they put solid in quotes there is because it is the illusion of solidity. Again, I think the example where Picard tosses the book through the holodeck door and his comments about that demonstration sum up how holodeck "matter" can only exist in that environment. If a person's yardstick is that an object seems to have the qualities of a real solid on the holodeck alone, then I guess that standard is met by this theoretical technology.
     
  20. Jul 11, 2016 #19
    The thing is, Geordi didn't see how that would ever work. To my knowledge, that method was never successfully applied in any TNG episode on a "real world" transporter.
     
  21. Jul 11, 2016 #20
    I forget how confusing that episode can be. The first time he "stepped out" of the holodeck I was like wtf.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Star Trek Holodeck
  1. Star Trek (Replies: 20)

  2. Star Trek Axanar (Replies: 1)

  3. Star Trek Beyond Trailer (Replies: 10)

Loading...