Talk:Holodeck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that an image of One of Voyager's Holodecks (which looks different than the ones on the Enterprise-D.) be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Star Trek Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

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)


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?

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
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)

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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 [1] 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)

[edit] 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)