Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A1CST t1_j31nzi4 wrote

This seems like just a giant FaceTime screen but with depth. When I think of holographic this is not it.

113

B_Brown4 t1_j31ppa4 wrote

Was thinking the same thing. It seems like just an expensive webcam with depth to it. Not impressed.

I'd have to see it for myself, it could be way different in person

31

Falzon03 OP t1_j31sfpc wrote

As with any tech, it would improve over time. I think a 3d display without glasses is a better description then hologram, depending on the exact tech used inside.

However, per current tech and our knowledge of physics. Our perception of what a "hologram" should be is not possible. Not without a "container" of sorts. A true Star Wars style hologram is just not obtainable as it defies physics in the way of somehow stopping light at precise distances without physical interruptions.

16

MagnaCamLaude t1_j31zb51 wrote

Just program nanobots to become the light so the stop at pre programed distances according to to dimensions of the object/subject of the video call. Easy fix lol

24

CollegeMiddle6841 t1_j351gfr wrote

That is the solution. We see what you are describing with aerial drone displays that are popular. To create a photorealistic human would take hundreds of thousands of microdrones. Sounds far fetched, but I think we will get there if the money tracks that is.

Imagine a puck of sorts, about the size of a dinner plate. Now imagine the same size plate about 18 inches above the other. Both plates could have a circular pattern of minute holes. One of the plates could pump out a thin haze and the other could capture it to be recirculated or vented out. A projector or series of projectors could create the "hologram".

Wonder if that would work?

5

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_j36debo wrote

Long time ago i went to se an holografic expo

the ones i most remember were the picture of a fisher king with a fish on is beak, despite being aware that it was a flat plate the illusion of the fish hanging in the air from the bird beak beyond the wall, it was amazing, put the hand against the wall and still the image seem closer than the hand and the wall, cover part of the hologram with the hand and being able to see it complete by looking throught the side like in a real window

another had the picture of an optometrist shop with a vision chart at the end and a pair of glasses seeminly closer to you in the air, in front of you and they worked as real glases do too, looking throught the glasses you could see the symbols in the chrart and the things in the shop bigger, not looking though the glasses you could look at the room and the chart as if not using the glasses, and standing next to the picture the glasses were closer close next to you than the wall

another had a microscope with an electronic chip on its glass plate, you could approach the microscope tiny lense and see the amplified details of the chip like using a real microscope while feeling that the microscope was closer to your eye than the wall

we get fooled that those are 3d because they are, the flat plate is not just an usual photo, it contains the reconstructed 3d image as intersection waves iluminated from a source that is reflected by a mirror into another point of light hitting the picture from a different angle

The plates i saw were higher quality than the star wars thing, but there are labs working on systems that can also project it that way, a problem that we have is that to do it with moving images is very difficult, you need to capture the complete 3d information for the reconstruction of the image and its surroundings and the objects are moving

but there are people working on different methods, from memory MIT tensor holography...and others, no idea of the quality or how far they are thought

2

Captn_Porky t1_j33h2vo wrote

>A true Star Wars style hologram is just not obtainable as it defies physics in the way of somehow stopping light at precise distances without physical interruptions.

what about:

stopping light with gravity

stopping light with opposing light

stopping light with dark matter idk

use fire instead of light (not literally hologram but effectively the same)

1

himo2785 t1_j354sgv wrote

You can’t control fire like that. In order to trap light you need something with the density of a black hole, crated instantaneously, which would pull in all other things around it whenever it started and you’d need both a way to contain it and a way to see the light that it eating.

There is no way to generate light from a fluid nonfixed point without a container of some form

2

Falzon03 OP t1_j344tb0 wrote

Literally none of those are possible. Gravity has zero affect on light. Light does not affect light. Dark matter is hypothetical currently.

You could potentially do it with lasers and partials in the air but there are many variables to that.

−2

Captn_Porky t1_j34ajm3 wrote

gravity does affect light

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34352/how-is-light-affected-by-gravity#34356
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

and light does affect light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

5

Falzon03 OP t1_j34c8n0 wrote

I was mistaken on gravity affecting light with it affecting the speed of light.

However, the second link on light affecting light is in a very particular circumstance in the lab.

1

Captn_Porky t1_j34i0ff wrote

theres also the possibility to do something like a controlled aurora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora

i dont think physics keep us from making holograms,
its just all pointless to do research in this area until quantum technology has matured

1

highjinx411 t1_j35oe29 wrote

It’s possible. You just need to think outside the box.

1

Dirks_Knee t1_j33fg55 wrote

Right? The rear projection on glass holograms seem a step ahead of this, or maybe the vid just doesn't do the system justice.

2

zebrahdh t1_j34yctd wrote

So then make adjustments…

What makes more sense? Should holograms change to fit your imagined one?

Or or…

Should you change what you think of as a hologram…

I literally had to do this 4-5 times in my life already with “phones” :

Wired- kitchen wall
The cordless
Nokia the indestructible
Nextel Clam shell
Any Smart phone

And I’m not even mentioning seeing “phones in cartoons where you hold one end to your ear and yell into the phone box reciever.

1

A1CST t1_j34zzzs wrote

No I refuse to because this is not a hologram. The logic you use to "make adjustments" confuses me because yes as technology gets better its still the same thing, if anything you just proved my point that this is just a tv or giant phone screen with some depth not a hologram. Maybe you should grasp a better understanding how technology evolves. So ill say it once again this is not a hologram and in my opinion does not fit the definition of a hologram.

0