Talk:Holodeck

Untitled 1
Why does this contain a spoiler warning? There are no spoilers here. RickK 07:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes, there are. Read the second last paragraph for an obvious example. -- Wilhelm Svenselius 16:16, 11 Apr 2005 (CET)

So what happens if you stay in a holodeck for several days, eating holomatter food and incorporating holomatter into your body, and then leave the holodeck? Man, I bet it hurts! Wbrameld 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd actually imagine that materials that are in proximity to or directly touched/assimilated by participants – like food – are actually replicated (as they are through replicator food stations) and not merely projected. Similarly, note what happened early in the TNG episode "Angel One", when Wesley and chap got into a snow fight and Picard and Worf were hit with a snowball outside of the holodeck ... and got sick because of it.  I bet it would hurt more if the safety protocols were deactivated, though. ;)  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly- Far away things (like that mountain range over there, or those trees 100 feet away) are basically 'painted on the wall', so to speak, using holographs. Closer things that you might minimally interact with (walls, trees, etc) are holographs with a force field to make them feel real. And things you interact with a lot (food, water, that stick you just snapped in two, that beach sand you just kicked, etc) is replicated. Why have the computer calculate exactly how water will splash, or the trajectory of each grain of sand? Just replicate real water and real sand!! THis explains most of the 'problems'- the snow was real snow, etc.12.110.196.19 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In one of the earliest episodes of Next Generation, Riker says that the holodeck functions, in part, like the food replicators. That supports the idea that food is food and snow snow. Merry medievalist (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Untitled 2
How exactly would different elevations work on a holodeck? What would happen if a holodeck recreated a cliff and if one jumped off of it? How would the holodeck recreate the feeling of falling? Finally, upon reaching the bottom, would the person sustain any injury? 68.161.214.178 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2006


 * the holodeck can control gravity within its confines. as to what would happen...probably something like when Neo falls in the matrix and bounces off the street. Carterhawk 08:06 4 April 2006
 * Though I can't cite any specific examples, even with safety protocols, people do get injured. Miles O'Brien is one that comes to mind. PrometheusX303 13:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * B'Elanna Torres is another example - she went skydiving, actively feeling the fall. She disengaged the safety protocols, and almost injured herself. However, Tom Paris was not affected by the 'gravity', even though Torres was still falling - Weebiloobil 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 3
Shouldn't this article act as a node to reference various real-life technologies that are being developed to attempt to approach Holodeck-type experiences? I've seen several up-and-coming technologies being touted as "one step closer to the Holodeck"... it seems like the Holodeck has joined the pantheon of science fiction concepts which are inspirations for real-world technology, and this fact should be recognized in this article. --66.136.221.243 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC

virtual treadmill issues
I always found holodecks facinating and one of the conundrums i had was how did people not bump into the holodeck walls in large simulated environments. I thought that the use of the virtual treadmill solved it but then i realized there was another issue: what would happen when on an open plain with two people, they start out standing next to each other, then one of them starts to walk backward from the other(always keeping their eyes on that person), since a real person on a holodeck is not generated by the computer after a certain period one of the people would hit the holodeck wall because the appropriate distance would need to be maintained visually and it could not be overcome by the holodeck itself - is there any official star trek science that would explain how this would be avoided? 24.239.133.170 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing official I know about, but perhaps if the holodeck could simply create some suspended lens that would make objects seen through it appear to be farther away...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.4.97 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple - Star Trek is not real. You're just supposed to accept that the holodeck creates an imaginary reality and works perfectly, except when the plot needs it not to. 66.32.12.48 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only does the holodeck use virtual treadmills, it also uses cleverly-placed optics, to make the person seem further away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebiloobil (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The holodeck is a lame plot device, thought up by writers to lazy to create a believable background story. Episodes featuring it are invariably ludicrous. And why even bother having the safety protocols at all? They always disable them which inevitably leads to disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.235.118 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Laws
I am removing the reference to the three laws of robotics for 2 reasons. First, the reference does not demonstrate anything. Second, the reference is incorrect. The first law of robotics is built into the the positronic brains of robots in the Asimov universe and will not be bypassed with a simple malfunction such as what happens with the holodecks. If such a malfunction occured with an Asimov robot, the robot would cease to function as it's brain relies on this function. As demonstrated in Escape!, if a positronic brain were presented with a problem that would cause death to humans, it would not have a solution (sort of like dividing by zero). Without protection in place, the holodeck continues to function as this malfunction is merely one of many possible malfuncitons. 129.15.131.243 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2007

Holosuites
The section about holosuites is a complete mess! It doesn't even make sense. More or less, holosuite is just another term for holodeck. Marcus1060 06:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed this section. This nothing anywhere that says, or even suggests, there is a difference between a holosuite and a holodeck. Just like saying Computer, or PC. Marcus1060 23:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Conceptual Flaws
I removed this because, it is not an issue. Because remember in the 24th century, the Federation is an utopian society, and therefore these are not issues. The issue of hedonistic nature is showing on DS9, out side of the Federation. Quark is often talking about his sex programs. The murderous part doesn't make sense either, why would some one use the holodeck to to do things such as murder? People use computers now a days for looking up porn, but not to write programs where they kill 3D models of their bosses. And no doubt there are regulations involving holosuites. If drugs are illegal, why would they be allowed to use them in a holosuite? Marcus1060 00:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed:
 * "In addition, most of the holodeck simulations which characters engineer are frivolous and platonic in nature. It is far more probable that, presented with such a facility, a large percentage of users would engage scenarios of a hedonistic nature, eg. explicit and depraved sexual activities with a range of fantasy figures, colleagues and friends; alternatively the consequence-free abuse of narcotics or indulgence of dark murder, rape and revenge fantasies."


 * I'm softening the following:


 * The primary criticism is that characters are frequently depicted walking into a completely deserted holodeck, despite living on a ship with many hundreds of other people, who would certainly be clamouring for such interactive entertainment on long range, deep-space missions. The more likely situation would be one of advance booking for privileges and waiting lists weeks or months long.


 * Reason? In Voyager, I recall episodes of ST: Voyager where Tom Paris or another mentioned "getting some holodeck time" scheduled. It was like a college raquetball court, you had to sign up for it. Tom Paris once remarked that he'd struggled to get holodeck time when both he and his wife were off-duty, and this was quite precious. ... Aaaaanyway, Star Trek is a fictional conoction, and such "realistic" restrictions stand in the way of telling a compelling story in 42 minutes; nitpickers need to get a clue and realize that the Enterprise flies not on matter/anti-matter warp engines, but on literary license. So I suspect this article's "primary criticism" is really just hearsay nitpicking, and not representative of Star Trek critiquing. Your mileage may vary. --David Spalding 04:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC


 * I've removed the Conceptual Flaws section entirely. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for criticism of Star Trek's writing. rdude 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

History
What about the history and development of the holodeck? I recall that the holodeck technology was given to the Klingons in an ST:VOY episode. // Liftarn

Holodecks/Danger Room similitudes
The X-Men's Danger Room in his second form with Shi'ar technology (the form that can be seen in the movie) seems to be virtually identical to the holodecks. I'm not sure wich one came first, but I think the Danger Room could be listed as either being inspired or being an inspiration for the holodecks in Star Trek.85.59.66.95 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Marvel.com says it predated not only the holodeck but the Star Trek franchise itself: (growl. I hate websites you can't copy text from) First appearance: (Unidentified) X-Men #1 (1964), (as Danger Room) X-Men #2, (1964). Personally, as often as the stupid thing broke, the first thing I'd do as captain is weld the door shut. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pyschological Issues
There was an older Star Trek novel where Dr. McCoy was trapped inside a holodeck which had been programmed to simulate an ever-changing garden maze, slowly driving him insane (or severely depressed), whereupon he began to appreciate the pyschological effects of such technology.

Unfortunate thing about ST:TNG is that they never explored the concept far enough. The possibilities for sex, torture, brainwashing, extreme training, practical jokes, crime, betrayal, etc. are endless and due to the inherent drama, highly entertaining. Lt. Barclay's addiction was pretty much their high point. Voyager's showcasing of a society permanently living in a holoverse is also notable, especially since the people were not allowed to leave and were slowly losing their marbles (which raises an interesting point about a suspended, slow-acting sensory deprivation effect, or perhaps more of an accumulative reality-detachment effect similar to what happens to those playing Second Life or MMORG games too much). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

May fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction?!
Well, cor blimey, it's an article about a fictional TV show. Should there be a disclaimer after every sentence stating that it merely references to a fictional universe? I've removed the { { fiction } }-tag 82.204.49.30 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but we might have to go that far if literalist idiots complain. ShutterBugTrekker 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Simulated Reality or Virtual Reality
The article as it is now states that a Holodeck is a form of simulated reality. I don't think it is; I think it's a form of virtual reality. A simulated reality would per definition mean that one cannot directly distinguish real reality from simulated one. However, Star Trek crew can easily see that the holodeck is "fake" (with their tricorder). Besides that, what the crew sees is in a sense real; the photons their eyes perceive, are real. Nothing's been done to their brain to see it. The Holodeck-visitors are interacting with simulated beings, but they're not simulated themselves, nor have their brains been tempered with. That would imply that a Holodeck is a form of virtual reality, or am I wrong? Tenth Plague (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've made the change. - dcljr (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In a real Holodeck the scene can be volumetric in nature where the scene is broken down into voxels and inside these voxels it is possible that the voxel is made up of rasterized moments that are triangulated in order to create tiny reflect planes to reflect the colour of the simulated object.
 * (Rays of light hit the tiny reflect planes and are reflected at the wavelength determined by the setup of the reflect planes and thus the light travels and is visible on the persons retina in their eye for decoding and to the person in the scene that object would be real at the colour seen.)
 * Thus ina scene the objects are almost real and if moment based technology is good enough to create a sense of solidness then the person within the scene could touch the object and have a sense of solidness to touch.
 * A Holodeck is the ultimate simulation environment and in this setup a simulated reality would be correct. I see a Holodeck as non-fiction and I cover a proof of concept approach to a specification at an entry level in my book "The Holodeck A Specification" Michael Cloran (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed content
I've removed the following from the lead, since I can't verify it at the moment, it seems a bit "trivia-ish", and it needs rewriting (and wikifying) by someone familiar with the relevant series (was this in TNG? -- I don't remember): "100 years before the events of Enterprise, Jean-Luc Picard was in Earth's past and had a human from that time period named Lily along with him on board the Enterprise. When they were running from the Borg on his starship they hid in the holodeck, therefore introducing the technology before Trip got to see it." - dcljr (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar technology in other works
Shouldn't this be removed? It's a long and boring list of holodeck "in popular culture"! I would keep 1 or 2 oldest appearance of the concept (Bradbury and Clifford Simak? Maybe X-Men?) and the quotation from Ivan Sutherland, both mingled with the text, not in a separated section. Or, at least, I'd delete everything after the X-Men reference. 189.81.254.170 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly Agree Not only is it tedious and not only does it actually obstruct the reader's understanding (like most of these kinds of lists), but it is almost perfectly unsourced and is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on using pop culture to create such meaningless bullet-point compendia.  The list as it is tells us very little about the Star Trek Holodeck, and contributes minimally to our understanding of the concept - which is already detailed at exhaustive length earlier in the article.  I would keep a few of the sourced entries to give a little bit of context, but the rest should clearly be removed, or incorporated into the main body of text where possible and appropriate (again, in accordance with explicit Wikipedia guidelines) Cpaaoi (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the article is way too long and written in an extremely confusing way! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see this article is rated as 'C class', indicating that it contains a lot of irrelevant material. I'm going to get on and sort this out: I think the Holodeck deserves a better page than this Cpaaoi (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)