Random General Science and Technical topics
- Thread starter YJ02
- Start date
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
With these currently used hologram devices, what would be needed to 'flesh them out'?
Another words, in your opinion, what would make them tactile and interactive; one you could touch and could touch objects..what would give them mass?
If this could be done, then could have great applications for work and research in areas too dangerous for man or machine (robots), now we just get entertainment from them as they are
Another words, in your opinion, what would make them tactile and interactive; one you could touch and could touch objects..what would give them mass?
If this could be done, then could have great applications for work and research in areas too dangerous for man or machine (robots), now we just get entertainment from them as they are
The answer to the bolded is: Virtual Reality. It's the entire reason to get involved in it. It is the closest thing to a holodeck we are going to get before the year 2050. All that is improving is the tactile interaction, not the basic technology. Right now, the Oculus Rift S which I own is only $399.00. Granted, I am using it on a gaming computer but even that only has an i5, 16gb of RAM and an Nvidia GTX 1060 3GB card. That is not even a high end gaming computer. With it, and it's touch controllers, I can experience a fully immersed world, and in the better games you get feedback in the touch controllers when you interact with things. I envision more physical feedback in the form of a suit or other attachments which will communicate feedback when you interact with things in VR.
In order for you to interact with something like your hologram video, you need only to create a 3D digital model of it. You can program it's mass within the VR world you are interacting with. You can get feedback by touching it with your touch controllers. I think the next step in controllers is gaming gloves with force feedback like the current hand held controllers have. If you haven't yet, I strongly recommend that you go to Best Buy or wherever and try VR out. I think it was the best purchase I have made in decades.
Last edited:
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
ok... but OM your example is still not 'real', i mean, to get an actually hard bodied object that i can shake hands with and feel the mass and texture of the hand
how did they explain it in Trek..or did they even explain?
i know 'forcefields and photons', what would that equate to in the real world, now or in the near future?
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
think about it
cleaning up a disaster like Fukishima or Chernobyl without having to expose humans or having to use highly engineered and very expensive robots/drones to do it.
imagine what could be done without risk and probably cheaper, if you could project a hologram that has the mass, the 'presence' to lift objects in the reactor
all with the hologram being beamed into the area on some Quantum laser or something
or beaming functional and tactile capable holograms to the moon, an asteroid or mars to set up whatever was needed as an advance for robots and then humans..beam the things their on a ray of laser light carrying the info
cleaning up a disaster like Fukishima or Chernobyl without having to expose humans or having to use highly engineered and very expensive robots/drones to do it.
imagine what could be done without risk and probably cheaper, if you could project a hologram that has the mass, the 'presence' to lift objects in the reactor
all with the hologram being beamed into the area on some Quantum laser or something
or beaming functional and tactile capable holograms to the moon, an asteroid or mars to set up whatever was needed as an advance for robots and then humans..beam the things their on a ray of laser light carrying the info
It is not ever going to happen in the way they show in Star Trek. At least not for a few generations, if ever. You will have the same experience of interacting with a hard object short of it being solid. The texture of the hand and all of that could only be simulated. However if you could manipulate some sort of solid "slug" into various shapes, and be in VR, you could approximate solid objects pretty easily and feel them with your actual hands. In VR, you would perceive the shape as it is represented in VR.
Not really sure what you are expecting.
Tech can only do so much, and what you are describing is not going to be possible for quite some time. But we can get very close to it. Pretty much, the holodeck and the forcefields and photons thing is fantasy in the way they show it in Star Trek.
That is not going to be possible (the bolded). The robot with a VR interface like what was shown in TNG with Geordi connected via a telepresence is more realistic.
When you are in VR, all you have to replicate is the tactile responses. You would not want to experience heat, cold, pain, etc. Just the feeling of touching something, and perhaps detecting the textures of surfaces. You would want to be able to see and hear as well. You can transmit all of that from a drone robot into a VR environment.
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
its not what i want or expect...i have no personal need for the stuff
simply asking you more tech inclined individuals just what advancements would be needed to be able to have a 'solid' hologram
if your not up to answering that, its ok,
its not what i want or expect...i have no personal need for the stuff
simply asking you more tech inclined individuals just what advancements would be needed to be able to have a 'solid' hologram
if your not up to answering that, its ok,
I did answer that.
Given the laws of physics and the current trajectories of science, much of the holodeck/solid hologram technology is just not possible to create. You can achieve the same basic outcome by using robots and VR. There is no way to make a hologram solid, and the path to that is stopped by the laws of physics.
YJ02
Well Known GateFan
here is a good quote from the epilogue of the book i just finished THE HUMAN COSMOS by Jo Marchant. Sums up the work pretty well:
""perhaps its no surprise, then, that we've ended up with schools that teach equations but not awe; medical systems that for all their expertise, kill millions each year through overuse of drugs and treatments, while marginalizing psychological approaches and denying conditions that don't show up on scans. That we count money instead of valuing happiness; judge our opinions by how many likes they collect; and increasingly hand over the running of our societies to blind AI.
That we obsessively build the stuff around us into new clever technologies, while driving the biosphere that surrounds us into destruction. That we are so focused on screens we barely notice the streetlights that erase our view of the stars.""
so, we have a pretty good understanding of the physical workings of nature and the universe on nearly everything from large to infinitesimally small--we know HOW IT WORKS but we do not KNOW WHY IT WORKS...whats is the motivation of the universe for its actions?
She spends a lot of time on how early science-from ancient sumeria and greece was often ridiculed if it was not inclusive of gods to how renaissance scientists used the prevailing religion of the time to find an understanding for how God works.. which of course is really physics and the other sciences.
But now, if one mentions anything but hardline, academically accepted wonder or thought- that person. even if they are a highly regarded scientist, is instantly ridiculed and 'cancelled' by the science community.. when it was that very same type of wonder and inspection that drove ppl like Newton and Galileo and others to begin with!
Today, Newton would be considered a religious person using science to justify his faith and discarded to the 'alt right' and Da Vinci's science experiments would be rejected by academia because he was not disciplined enough-- too distracted by his art and philosophy
www.theguardian.com
""perhaps its no surprise, then, that we've ended up with schools that teach equations but not awe; medical systems that for all their expertise, kill millions each year through overuse of drugs and treatments, while marginalizing psychological approaches and denying conditions that don't show up on scans. That we count money instead of valuing happiness; judge our opinions by how many likes they collect; and increasingly hand over the running of our societies to blind AI.
That we obsessively build the stuff around us into new clever technologies, while driving the biosphere that surrounds us into destruction. That we are so focused on screens we barely notice the streetlights that erase our view of the stars.""
so, we have a pretty good understanding of the physical workings of nature and the universe on nearly everything from large to infinitesimally small--we know HOW IT WORKS but we do not KNOW WHY IT WORKS...whats is the motivation of the universe for its actions?
She spends a lot of time on how early science-from ancient sumeria and greece was often ridiculed if it was not inclusive of gods to how renaissance scientists used the prevailing religion of the time to find an understanding for how God works.. which of course is really physics and the other sciences.
But now, if one mentions anything but hardline, academically accepted wonder or thought- that person. even if they are a highly regarded scientist, is instantly ridiculed and 'cancelled' by the science community.. when it was that very same type of wonder and inspection that drove ppl like Newton and Galileo and others to begin with!
Today, Newton would be considered a religious person using science to justify his faith and discarded to the 'alt right' and Da Vinci's science experiments would be rejected by academia because he was not disciplined enough-- too distracted by his art and philosophy
The Human Cosmos by Jo Marchant review â learn from the stars
From Palaeolithic paintings to astrophysics … a glittering history takes in explorers, aliens and a world vanishing from view