Holograms and shadows

[JirinPanthosa]

So we're going with the convoluted explanation over the simpler explanation of "The forcefields block light too"?

 

[HIjol]

Or, we could do that!

 

[The Wormhole]

So we're going with the convoluted explanation over the simpler explanation of "The forcefields block light too"?

Everything gets a convoluted explanation in Star Trek.

 

[JarodRussell]

Also, the Doctor does not glow in the dark. So Trek holograms do not emit light.

 

[Timo]

Unless, of course, they are holograms of burning people.

The physical sensation alone requires the hologram to be "there" in three dimensions. No reason why it ought to glow or be transparent/shadowless if it really is "stuff suspended right there". And further, clearly the process of "casting" the hologram there does not suffer from any shadow effects, either, or Sisko couldn't properly grab that baseball and Dixon Hill couldn't give those dames the embrace they deserve.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

Also, the Doctor does not glow in the dark. So Trek holograms do not emit light.

Which mean we can see him by way of reflected light. If it's bouncing off of him, it's not passing through him.

 

[Chronos]

Holograms won't block light, but the holographic projector is smart enough to communicate with the surrounding lighting. From that point, it's just a matter of selectively dimming the lights in the room so that the doctor appears to have a shadow.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I always got the impression that the name "holodeck" was a misnomer for what it really did, or merely a subset of what it did. I saw it as more of a dynamically-operating and persistent replicator, temporarily assembling computer-controlled matter, coupled with ambient light and force-fields, to generate a complete interactive illusion. If such were the case, the existence of shadows would not only be completely reasonable, but necessarily expected.

As a modern-day example, 3-D lenticular cards and movie posters are oftentimes described as being holograms, but they are based on a completely different physical principal of optics and are in no way similar to holography. I think we're really seeing the same kind of muddying of technological nomenclature going on here with the holodeck.

 

[E-DUB]

Maybe the term is a holdover from days when the holograms weren't solid.

 

[HIjol]

You mean "holodover"?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Maybe the term is a holdover from days when the holograms weren't solid.

Yep. That's a great idea.

 

[Vandervecken]

That was done through the use of selective dynamic force fields, which the holo-character can autonomously control at will, it's not solid physical matter

Okay, if the Doctor's form permits the passage of light, thereby preventing the casting of a shadow, then when the Doctor moves in front of a light we should be able to see it through him.

Huh? Why? We'd see light pass through him no more than through a human being, Borg, hand phaser, or chair.

 

[T'Girl]

Huh? Why? We'd see light pass through him no more than through a human being, Borg, hand phaser, or chair.

Yes, this is why the doctor does cast a shadow, because light doesn't pass through him.

 

[Timo]

I always got the impression that the name "holodeck" was a misnomer for what it really did, or merely a subset of what it did.

I'd rather argue that the use of the word "hologram" today is the incorrect one, and future people will put right what once went horribly wrong.

A "hologram" from today is not the whole picture - it's a very poor attempt at one. A "hologram" from the Trek 24th century is the whole picture, though, and a worthy claimant for the title.

Timo Saloniemi