3

Microsoft claims that their HoloLens data glasses can produce holograms.

HoloLens lets you create holograms, objects made of light and sound that appear in the world around you, just as if they were real objects. [...] The holograms that HoloLens renders appear in the holographic frame directly in front of the user's eyes.

As seen in this video, it requires the use of augmented-reality goggles.

Merriam-Webster defines a hologram as

a three-dimensional image reproduced from a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser).

I suspect that Microsoft uses the term wrongly and the technology is simply a semi transparent screen in the glasses, or a laser projection into the eye, or some other "conventional" technology. Is that so?

Edit: In response to the close vote let me clarify that I'm asking about the specific, classic technology called holography which creates (true, classic) holograms. I'm not asking about other technologies which create projections of objects, even if they appear to be immersed in real spaces to an observer. I find this is as objective a question as it gets with near zero room for opinion (after we have solved the potential ambiguity of the word hologram).

Peter - Reinstate Monica
  • 1,531
  • 10
  • 20
  • 2
    The fourth sentence in your first link: "The holograms that HoloLens renders appear in the holographic frame directly in front of the user's eyes". So yes, it's your first guess: the hologram is displayed on a screen in the HoloLens. – Giter Aug 07 '19 at 21:58
  • @Giter A true hologram is not a simple projection on a semi transparent screen *appearing* to be 3-dimensional. I'll edit the question to clarify. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 07 '19 at 22:32
  • Reading the article, it seems pretty obvious to me that Microsoft is just using the term "hologram" to describe objects rendered with the HoloLens. What @Giter said is true. There's also the sentence that describes how the audio from these holograms is transmitted to you, using the HoloLens headset. – TheWanderer Aug 07 '19 at 22:40
  • 1
    @TheWanderer I did notice that they use that term for their projected 3D images. That's why I'm here ;-). If somebody uses the term "hologram" to describe "objects" (or actually 3D images, or projections, of objects) rendered, as we both noticed they do here, I'd assume they mean "hologram" and not "nice, hi-res colored 2D projection", because for that you'd use the word "2D projection", just in order to avoid confusion, especially with holograms. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 07 '19 at 22:50
  • @PeterA.Schneider welcome to marketing... – TheWanderer Aug 07 '19 at 22:51
  • 5
    @PeterA.Schneider: True holograms [literally are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography#Reconstructing_and_viewing_the_holographic_image) a simple projection on a semi transparent screen appearing to be 3-dimensional. They are just images that are displayed on a 2d screen, [but can show different perspectives](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/194942/how-do-star-trek-viewscreens-show-perceivable-depth) when you view the screen from different angles. – Giter Aug 08 '19 at 00:19
  • 4
    This is a pointless quibble about prescriptivist definitions. Microsoft explicitly explain the way they use term in the first page. They clearly use a different definition to Wikipedia, which requires it to be visible with a naked eye. The understanding of the word hologram has shifted since the 70s, such that the Pepper's Ghost effect of Tupac was widely called a hologram. – Oddthinking Aug 08 '19 at 01:01
  • Seems like they're using the term properly. They're saying that their HoloLens projects "_holographic frames_", and presumably the full hologram is the synthesis of its frames. By analogy, TV's display animated frames, and their synthesis is an animation. – Nat Aug 08 '19 at 05:33
  • @Oddthinking Thanks for the good edit. Re "prescriptivist": Hey, learned a new word! I see that you find it OK to give a new meaning to the word, and of course such shifts are how language evolves. So maybe to millennials *hologram* generally means "3D projection embedded in real space" and I'm old-fashioned: Because to me it is a sophisticated, [very specific technology](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hologram) with special properties. I was genuinely wondering whether MS used that. Watering down the meaning means we need a new word for actual holograms, doesn't it? – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 06:21
  • A little of marketing mumbojumbo. HoloLens LET YOU CREATE (so the HL should be like a chisel) that appear in world around you (which they don't because they don't appear around you). There is a linguistic jump because the holo lens don't create anything. It just let you see what have been created. Like any other AR goggles. – SZCZERZO KŁY Aug 08 '19 at 07:37
  • @Giter Re "holograms are simple projections on a semi transparent screen appearing 3-dimensional": I am aware of that -- but *sans* simple: The technology is (even today) sophisticated even for still holograms, let alone dynamic objects rendered in real-time. So obviously MS projects something one way or another on a semi-transparent surface, but I strongly suspect that it is not a true hologram in the classic sense of the word. But I'm not sure, hence the question. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 08:20
  • @Oddthinking The question was not meant as an argument of a word definition -- to me the meaning of *hologram* is pretty unambiguous. Apparently it is not, so I made it clear what I meant. If it is obvious to you that the HoloLens does not do that (it is not to me), then simply write down your answer and reasons. It was a fairly clear question, I thought, before *hologram* became fuzzy. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 08:24
  • 2
    The question boils down to whether the use of the word by Microsoft is appropriate, up to a subjective standard. What they mean by it is clear, so we are left with a question which is not appropriate for the site. – Sklivvz Aug 08 '19 at 10:29
  • @Sklivvz *All* skeptics questions concern the veracity of verbal statements. A prerequisite for a fact check is to define what we want to check. In other words, we need to establish the meaning of these statements. Hence *all* questions on this site boil down to the appropriate use of words like "majority", "mass shooting", "genocide", *billionaire" etc. "Hologram" is not an exception, and I genuinely cannot see anything special about it. By now the meaning of the fact I want to have checked is hopefully sufficiently established; if the answer is trivial, please write it down. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 10:40
  • 2
    @PeterA.Schneider That is fair, but keep in mind that your question is coming from an incomplete reading of the source. Microsoft never claimed they are using "classic" holograms. Since nobody is claiming that, your question doesn't have a leg to stand on. More clearly - you're attacking the specific meaning of the word "hologram" _when in the context of the HoloLens_, which is very clearly _not_ the classical meaning. It is like arguing that Google's Home Page isn't an actual "page", as in made of paper. – T. Sar Aug 08 '19 at 10:59
  • @T.Sar I'd say it's rather as if Shell sells mineral fuel as bio diesel because it's originally from plants... "oh, they just very obviously never claimed to use "classic" bio diesel!" ;-) – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 11:21
  • 1
    Is Shell making it clear on their page that their diesel is mineral? If not, then your argument makes no sense. Keep in mind that even Shell makes it clear that their diesel is _blended_, not purely bio, so... – T. Sar Aug 08 '19 at 11:57
  • would the wikipedia quote count as a hologram to you? because that's what the hololens creates. a 3 d image visible to the naked eye (a little philosophical whether the hololens counts as naked eye...) – bukwyrm Aug 08 '19 at 20:08
  • @bukwyrm You mean the part "Images requiring the aid of special glasses [...] are often incorrectly called holograms"? – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 08 '19 at 20:31
  • @PeterA.Schneider I was wondering why you only included the generic "an image that appears to be three dimensional and which can be seen with the naked eye." from Wikipedia. A hologram that you can see through will at some point require seein through something, so it comes as no surprise. There are novelty spectacles with glasses that incorporate (non-changing) holograms (holograms after your liking, i guess), but even those you will have to look at, or, using them as glasses, through. I guess the 'special glasses' Wikipedia is referring to are red/green specs or similar. – bukwyrm Aug 09 '19 at 07:13
  • @PeterA.Schneider Would a 'display', consisting of a mirror showing you the reflection of a real object be 'holographic' to you? What would fulfill your expectation of a 'true hologram'? – bukwyrm Aug 09 '19 at 07:47
  • @bukwyrm That edit was from Oddthinking. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 09 '19 at 08:10
  • 3
    Sure, I quoted the key part of the Wikipedia definition in an edit to protect against link rot and to make it easier to understand your point, but that definition was linked by you as "true holography". It seems you have changed which definition you prefer, which emphasizes that this is just a subjective definitions issue, not a question that needs to be answered with emperical evidence. – Oddthinking Aug 09 '19 at 12:18
  • @Oddthinking The sentence you quoted from the wikipedia article -- the very first one -- appeared to me not the key part but an introductory, general description, followed by the technical details specific to holograms. All holograms appear three-dimensional, so the first sentence is a correct part of a definition; but obviously not all three-dimensional appearing images are holograms, so the the first sentence is not the complete definition (which cannot be expected from the first sentence). – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 10 '19 at 05:25
  • Why the heck this is ON HOLD? – Croll Aug 11 '19 at 18:30
  • 1
    This question needs to be answered! – Croll Aug 11 '19 at 18:31
  • SE.Skeptics is about if claims are _true_, not about how they're worded. For example, if someone claims that `1+1=10`, then its correctness depends on context -- for example, are they writing in decimal or binary? And if it's in binary, then is this clear to readers? That said, if someone writes **"_1+1=10 in Base-2 (binary)._"**, then it's silly to say that they're wrong simply because it's more standard to express the same thought as`1+1=2` -- though we might still critique the claim for being misleading if there's reason to suspect that readers may miss the part about it being in binary. – Nat Aug 11 '19 at 21:33
  • @Nat I personally first thought that MS creates holograms. It was no clear to me that they give the word a different meaning. I mean, it's like talking about a nuclear sub that runs on diesel, right? Nuclear is nuclear, and hologram is hologram. *All* statements are about words. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 12 '19 at 05:10
  • @PeterA.Schneider I can appreciate how that could feel misleading. Seems like an interesting issue, from a meta-perspective (perhaps a good discussion for SE.Skeptics.Meta?). I mean, if it's truly the case that a significant portion of people would feel misled upon contact with the claim, then it could be argued that it's stated in a misleading way. Still, I dunno if too many people would interpret it that way; the fact that the whole thing's basically a set of glasses that go over the user's eyes seems to make what it does pretty obvious. – Nat Aug 12 '19 at 05:17
  • @PeterA.Schneider no, it's from technical documentation. They decided to call their "3d sprites" holograms. They explain what they are. They are not misleading in any way. You might simply don't like they overloaded the word "hologram", which by the way is already commonly abused (for example in science fiction). – Sklivvz Aug 12 '19 at 17:58

0 Answers0