A question about Holodecks

[tharpdevenport]

Not really. It depends on the computers ability to monitor and "guess" the intent of Data when he threw the rock towards the actual wall. Data wanted the rock to disrupt the simulation, and so the simulated was disrupted.

It's dumb for the very example I cited further down in the same post, but I'll expand upon a little further: we've seen holodecks take poundings to the floor repeated, yet at no point have we ever seen the floor do what the wall did what it had a rock thrown at it. It's a weird early TNG writer's thing, like beaming a large tree out into space and destroying it (which apparently there is a supply of on the Enterprise D! Or at least one).

 

[The Wormhole]

It's stupid, it makes the holograms appear to be two-dimensional instead of the three dimensional they are and it shows that aparently just hitting it lightly causes it to affect hte diplay of the hologram, which makes no sense considering this never happens again

It actually does happen one more time, again I bring up Ship in a Bottle, Data throws something towards the warp core but it instead bounces off the holodeck wall, thus proving they are in the holodeck.

 

[Timo]

1. Why is holographic tech' even used so often if the holodeck can simply replicate stuff? If it is so easy to reclaim, why not replicate entire environments? I understand holograms serve a purpose for thigns like running, long trails, sky diving, etc., when you are dealing with programs that are much larger than the dimensional confines of the Holodeck itself.

It would make sense for the holodeck to do everything the easiest, cheapest and quickest way. Only when absolutely required would it resort to processes that are complicated or resources-intensive.

And "reclaiming" replicated matter is probably a wasteful process: you don't gain anything much, you just use the same amount of resources a second time in order to get rid of an object. So you wouldn't replicate stuff willy-nilly if forcefields or mere images suffice.

2. Where is the line drawn for real thigns replicated? How complex does it get? Aside from obvious likely safety protocols/laws, why couldn't, for example, a person be created and then the the program of the mind uploaded into an artificial mind inside the brain cavity?

I see no theoretical limitations. But holodeck is theatre. You don't do stuff for real if you can get away with something less. And an image of a person is no doubt simpler to do than a real person - not to mention simpler to control and modify as needed!

3. How does the holodeck decide what is and what is not needed to be real as apposed to a hologram?

By carefully watching how the entertainment unfolds. It needs 100% alertness in any case. And there's no reason why it wouldn't have that.

And how does it happen in large areas? Take for example when Picard got hit by a snowball flying out of the holodeck. What if you are running around in the snow, a large area or going outside of the confines of the holodeck, so it has to use holographic trickery to fool you into thinking you have gone far (which also doesn't make sense if more than two people, really)

The obvious trick there is to erect walls between users and project images on those walls, including suitably distanced images of other users. Holotech has optical illusions down pat, and perspective would be the simplest thing to fake.

It would seem extremely unlikely the holodeck suddenly was not only able to change the holographic snow into real replicated snow that also looks exactly like it did before hand

Why exactly? Nobody cares about exactly. But "exactly enough" should be doable.

(replicators cant' even reproduce cooked food quite right, so we are told in-verse)

By people who would complain anyway and would no doubt flunk a blind test. It's not as if anybody has actually suggested that mashed potatoes wouldn't look, feel, taste and smell like mashed potatoes - they just aren't "like Mom used to make them". With a snowball, with much the same consistency and feel, Mom won't be involved.

but also intermix it with the real replicated snow. So why even have real replicated snow at all? Same goes for swimming, for example.

Snow and water interact extremely closely and complexly with skin. Their physical and thermal properties might best be reproduced by creating the real stuff. It only need be skin deep, of course - no need to create the entire Caribbean.

Really, the big issue here is that in order to do even the humblest of the illusions we witness, the holodeck already is required to be pretty versatile. And there's nothing wrong with that: for one thing, treknology elsewhere can do even better, and OTOH holodecks did only seem to reach the observed perfection in the mid-24th century, even though they should have been in existence in some form back in our days already, so there was some effort involved. And it's not over yet, as TNG explicates room for improvement. It's just that we can't properly judge the degree of realism or perfection when it's filtered through our clumsy TV sets, so we have to trust the word of our heroes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedman67]

Perhaps, since Data was the one who disrupted the illusion both times, he was able to briefly 'summon' the holodeck wall to disrupt the illusion via computer override.

 

[tharpdevenport]

It would make sense for the holodeck to do everything the easiest, cheapest and quickest way. Only when absolutely required would it resort to processes that are complicated or resources-intensive.

Price isn't an issue though.

And if easiest is an issue, then nothing should be replciated at all, because as you point out in a reply further down, there's little to get out of reclaiming replicated matter. So, what's easier to do: replicate matter and lose energy and waste energy in the process or simply make everything holographic? We alreayd know the holodecks can be energy hogs that have to be shut down whne the ship really needs more power.

And "reclaiming" replicated matter is probably a wasteful process: you don't gain anything much, you just use the same amount of resources a second time in order to get rid of an object. So you wouldn't replicate stuff willy-nilly if forcefields or mere images suffice.

I agree, it probably is, but unfortuantely I'm once again having to point out stupid shit done on stupid "Star Trek: Voyager".

And an image of a person is no doubt simpler to do than a real person - not to mention simpler to control and modify as needed!

Yeah, Geordi knows a lot about that. ;-)

By carefully watching how the entertainment unfolds. It needs 100% alertness in any case. And there's no reason why it wouldn't have that.

I don't know, it seems unlikely if they're energy hogs. Plus where do any important equipment aboard the ship demonstrate this?

 

[Timo]

Price isn't an issue though.

Why not? Surely any system would be designed to work optimally, and unless saving of resources was in direct conflict with the main goal of providing user satisfaction, the system would go for the saving.

And if easiest is an issue, then nothing should be replciated at all, because as you point out in a reply further down, there's little to get out of reclaiming replicated matter.

But a lot to get out of providing the user with real matter, in terms of user satisfaction. Contact items such as snowballs and lipstick would be prime applications. Surfaces in general might be at least partial matter, while interiors would only exist as abstractions. (Unless somebody wishes to wield an axe and see what lies inside, at which point the holodeck would react accordingly.)

So, what's easier to do: replicate matter and lose energy and waste energy in the process or simply make everything holographic?

Depends on the principal goal, user satisfaction. It may be much more demanding to fake a snowball with forcefields than with replicated snow. But in other situations the reverse may be true. And there is no particular reason for the holodeck to be limited to just one of the approaches.

We alreayd know the holodecks can be energy hogs that have to be shut down whne the ship really needs more power.

"Booby Trap"? But in VOY the opposite is true: while our heroes scavenge for scraps like "life support on deck nine", they trivially dismiss the unavailability of holodeck power.

Apparently the situation in the TNG episode was far more extreme than anything the Voyager went through...

I agree, it probably is, but unfortuantely I'm once again having to point out stupid shit done on stupid "Star Trek: Voyager".

How so? DS9 already had people putting dishes back to the replicator - not for energy recovery, but for keeping the cabins clean, apparently.

That's significant, really. Replicators may consume power - but the amount is apparently insignificant, because there are no limits on replicating stuff that certainly doesn't require replication (say, the plates, forks and knives for a given meal). UFP citizens never save energy in their personal lives. Yet automation may be programmed to optimize anyway.

I don't know, it seems unlikely if they're energy hogs. Plus where do any important equipment aboard the ship demonstrate this?

I don't really believe in the energy hog thing - sonic showers and turbolifts probably shut down before the computer told LaForge to stop playing with the fake Brahms. But the ship certainly is alert, in most trivial matters: its sliding doors anticipate behavior. (Just like they should. This could have been done with 1970s tech, and today it would be trivial to have a webcam monitor the movements of people and to open doors only to people visibly heading out, not to people randomly ending up near the doors. But there's no consumer demand for the tech so far.)

Split-second reaction and downright anticipation is the only way for the dumbest holographic simulations to exist in the first place. Say, the direction of the user's gaze defines what the 'deck ought to visualize for the user, and as we know, it can't all be there "for real" (especially the things extending beyond the walls) waiting for the gaze to flicker.

The thing is, the holodeck probably will fail part of the time. We just don't get to see it, because we watch through TV sets that have pauses and cuts of their very own, don't convey smells and touch, etc. But the heroes comment on the improving quality of simulations, until a point is reached in mid-TNG where they downright can't tell the difference between holodeck and reality. That's fairly logical in simple terms of the machine getting the hang of the user already - no need for major breakthroughs there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedman67]

If you take a holographic axe and decapitate a holographic person, the holodeck will instantly add another layer to the illusion to simulate the flesh being torn apart and the blood splattering all over the place (probably a colored fluid replicated to simulate blood, rather than replicated blood).
If you ask the holodeck to create 1950's San Fransisco, or 19th century London, the houses and shops and cars are all 3D "illusions", except the ones close enough to touch, at which point they become "touchable" illusions or replicated simulations.

 

[at Quark's]

If holodecks can effortlessly (re)create real matter of "sufficient" complexity (and I don't doubt it, because the personnel transporters can, and Janeway states the holodeck to be 'basically an outgrowth of transporter technology'), it's very plausible imho that Picard & crew could actually have materialised Moriarty any time they wished. They simply didn't want him to leave the holodeck