And I'm sure Wormtail found a way to wank while in the form of a rat. I know everyone here would.

 

We know you can cast a spell without speaking the incantation. It's not much of a leap to think you could do it without the wand movements as well. For now I'll leave the concept of wandless magic for another day and assume that no matter how good you get at magic, you'll almost always need your wand to focus the power.

So, we've already seen that you can leave steps out of the process if you're skilled enough at magic.

Transfiguration is no different. For the amateurs, there are spells that have all the basic concepts of the transfiguration built into them.

In changing a rat to a metal goblet we have Living to Inanimate, Organic to Metal, Change of Size, Change of Mass, Low Density to High Density... But it's one preset spell. It's a macro, if you will, that has all of the different steps built into it. Because it does most of the work itself, you make a sacrifice; in this case, you sacrifice versatility. It's a very specific spell and it's only good for one thing.

A relatively low level student should still be able to pull this off, because most of the work is built into the spell automatically. On the other hand, it's a nearly useless spell. Who the fuck needs to turn a rat into a goblet? If you're in that dire need of something to drink out of, I'd wager the only available beverages are rat blood or rat urine. Moving right along...

Changing a match into a needle is a beginner spell. Both objects are roughly the same size and mass, they're both the same basic shape, they're both nonliving. The only big difference is that one is a chemically treated piece of wood and the other is metal. It requires fewer processes to be built into the macro, so it doesn't require as much skill or power as the rat-goblet spell.

What these macros do is give the student a taste of how the processes work. Once you have that rat to goblet thing down, changing a living object to a sword or something isn't far off.

Once you have the feel for Living to Inanimate and Organic to Inorganic, et cetera, down pat, you can Transfigure such things without the need for a specific spell.

If you haven't the talent, then you might have to stick with minor Transfigurations that only change one or two properties of an item (like changing a hubcap into a pie pan or an old blanket into a sweater), or resort to using a 'macro' spell that has the steps built into it.

Like so many other areas of magic, if you're really good you can basically make it up as you go along but if you aren't as talented, you're stuck using the pre-made spells. It's the difference between making a cake using a boxed mix with the proper instructions and making one from scratch using your intuitive knowledge of baking.

There may be a spell that specifically turns a rock into a dog but only if the rock doesn't have too much metal content and the size isn't too far outside the parameters of the spell and it always results in the same type of dog (probably an indistinct mutt, unless the original inventor of the spell had a breed in mind). It's used against opponents in a duel and can be used by an average witch or wizard.

McGonagall, on the other hand, could forgo the use of this pre-built spell and simply use her in depth knowledge of Transfiguration to change any nearby object into any breed of dog she wanted to (or maybe a Bengal tiger, being that she is more of a cat person).

In short: Transfiguration, like pretty much any other field of magic, is made up of "one size fits all" spells, which are specific and limited, for the beginners and untalented BUT for the talented and highly skilled, there is virtually no limit to what they can do, their only bounds being imagination, skill, power, et cetera.
---

As for making a change permanent... Either you can't, you can but it takes a lot of power (which may eventually run out) or there's a trick to it.

The 'trick' may involve inscribing the object with runes so that it draws power from outside itself, in order to maintain the change or it may be that you have to take care when you're Transfiguring it to align the molecular matrices just so, blah blah tachyon field blah.
---

Those are five (or more) vastly different things.

1: Changing a match to a needle = Neither of these is a living object. Assuming that all living things have some energy, it wouldn't be crazy to think that they will naturally try to return to their original shape. Since neither a needle, nor a match has its own energy, it probably won't try to return to its original shape. Thus, the change may last longer or may automatically be permanent on its own.

2: Changing a rat to a goblet = A rat has its own life force and energy. Making a somewhat large assumption, I'm going to say that a rat tends to stay a rat unless acted upon by an outside force. Thus, its energy will act against the transformation, unless you use your own energy or energy from an outside force to maintain the change.

It might be possible to fashion the spell to pervert the living creature's own magic into powering the transfiguration and maintaining it, but that would go against the natural order of things (yes, even more than turning a rat into a hunk of metal in the first place) and strikes me as being 'dark magic' (boo!). That kind of thing would be reserved for a spell that turns people into statues and never expires or something to that effect; not nice, I think you'd agree.

3: Changing an object that will then be changed again = making a statue out of a pile of rocks and making pepperoni pizza out of a pile of rocks are two vastly different things. The statue is pretty much going to sit there (not entirely unlike the goblet that used to be a rat, minus the living aspect). Yes, nature may act upon it to try and wear it down but by and large, there are no fundamental chemical changes being made to its structure.

On the other hand, if you eat a pizza that used to be a pile of rocks, you're asking that magical change you just made to maintain itself after you have chewed the pizza, dissolved it with acid, digested it, converted it to sugars and proteins, and so on, and then incorporated these substances into your cells. It ain't all coming out your ass at the end of the day, compadre. That change you made to the pizza... you'd better hope those particles don't turn back to silica, iron, carbon and so on after they have been incorporated into your cells. On top of all that, your body's own magic might be working against that spell at this point. That is a lot to ask of a spell.

4: Animagus transformation = your own magic/ability to draw magic is what is maintaining the change here. Barring the possibility of a wizard trying to force you to change back, a ward set to automatically end an animagus transformation, or the animagus becoming so magically exhausted that they 'run out' of magic faster than they can regain it (if running out is even possible), there is no reason why you couldn't maintain the change indefinitely.

An animagus can even sleep in their animal form and still maintain the transformation. Your magic should continue to power and reinforce the change unless you are compelled to change by an outside force or you run out of juice. Unlike the rat you changed, you are willingly, actively (and possibly subconsciously) trying to stay changed and your magic helps out.

5: Changing a rock into a dog = We're talking about taking a plain old rock with no life force of its own and turning it into a living, breathing, yapping, shitting animal with biological processes and everything. Where is this energy coming from? Maybe it's as simple as saying that, after the wizard has provided the initial energy required to make the change, the dog's biological processes provide energy the same as any other living creature. It's an artificial dog, so maybe it will unwittingly use some of its life force to maintain the change or maybe there is some entropy factor imposed on any spell that would attempt to create life/energy where there was none before. I don't know.

 

Damn Warlocke, I like your explanation. You put a lot of thought into it.

Another Transfiguration question I have is, is it possible to create life with transfiguration? We know you can transfigure inorganic objects into animals, so aren't you effectively creating life? Does the transfigured animal have memories and consciousness? If you can't conjure lasting food, can you not simply transfigure a rock into a pig and slaughter it for food? Are there laws in the wizarding world against creating permanent life (if creating life is indeed possible)?

Another thought that just popped into my head is, is it possible to corrupt the nature of an living being or change it's nature with transfiguration? The inspiration of this question comes from either GoF or OOTP (can't remember which) where I believe someone makes a comment about a chicken breathing fire or something like that. Something about a ban on creating experimental hybrids? Seems pretty close to dark magic in my opinion if you are permanently altering the nature of a living being against it's will (such as giving a chicken the ability to breathe fire). That goes along with what you said about transfiguring someone permanently into a statue using their own magic. If I remember correctly, I believe it's called the Transmogrification (petrification) curse (mentioned in CoS). I think that's why Dumbledore dismisses Harry as a suspect in CoS so readily, because it is undoubtedly extremely advanced (and dark) magic to petrify someone.

 

Wow, I just imagined J.K. Rowlings reaction if she read this thread...
It would have been hilarious! I personally don't believe that all wizards have the same level of power and believe that a wizard's/witch's magical grows like a muscle, more you use stronger it gets.

 

I came up with most of the details on the spot but I have thought about a lot of it in vague terms for quite a while now. If only I could come up with coherent plot frameworks, I could actually write a story that would interest more people than just me.

I have some stuff written for a story and one of the concepts touched upon is exactly that. Harry does something you're not supposed to be able to do (as far as anyone knows) and creates an artificial life (more or less).

I did read a story once where Harry created some kind of monstrous, 'insectoid' construct that was virtually indestructible (like a xenomorph out of Aliens or something) and it wasn't expiring like other transfigurations. It also had some rudimentary intelligence, obeyed Harry's commands and kicked death eater ass. It's been ages ago, so I don't remember what it was and it was probably abandoned after a handful of chapters.

It may or may not have been the same story where one of the characters mentioned something about it being illegal to create animals/lifeforms through transfiguration.

Out of curiosity; why? Because she probably never put that much thought into it, because we're over-thinking it like the geeks we are, or just because?

I prefer it that way as well. It's more fun, in general, it opens up certain possibilities you don't have in a world of equals and it gives the hero (and villain) a chance to have 'bigger guns' than everyone else, which is also more fun.

Realistically, in all honestly, how many things are equal among everyone from birth to death?

 

I would assume transfiguration has some spells, because otherwise everyone would have mastered nonverbal spells from first year onwards, and incantations would be unnecessary for all subjects (unless everyone was monumentally stupid).

The best explanation I can come up with on the spot regarding how transfiguration works is as follows.

First of all, I believe that incantations provide some sort of mind-magic connection for one to initially master a spell, and once one is proficient and has sufficient willpower, one will be able perform the spell nonverbally.

Based on this, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a gradient in terms of working towards the nonverbal stage from the initial basic spell stage, where there is a very specific spell for a certain type of transfiguration. The gradient would be composed of various classes which would become increasingly abstract until one could conceivably perform spells nonverbally.

Let's take the example of transfiguring a hedgehog into a desk. The initial incantation would be "hedgehog into desk," further up the line would be "mammal into wood," and even past that "animal into nonliving object." The initial would be easiest to master as it would provide the strongest mind-magic connection, whereas one would have to concentrate more in manipulating magic if one were to use the "animal into nonliving object" spell. From this, the ultimate step would be nonverbal magic.

Therefore, each type of basic transfiguration would have a multitude of incantations that could be used, and once one were at a more abstract stage of incantation, presumably one would be able to perform such transfigurations as "persian carpet into iPod" that wouldn't have basic incantations.

As to the actual mechanics of what transfiguration is, I would take Lyndon Eye's illusion theory and modify it.

We know that the Philosopher's Stone transmutes common metals into gold; that is, it permanently changes the base metals. Alchemy, therefore, seems to be the field of magic dealing with permanent changes of matter and seems to me to be somewhat of a cross between Transfiguration and Potions.

Transfiguration on its own, however, seems to be restricted to temporary changes of matter into something else. The length of change would be proportional to the amount of magic poured in, along with how strong of a visualization one happened to use.

Based on this, a 'permanent' transfiguration would require an infinite amount of magical power and a very strong visualization. As this is impossible, crossing transfiguration with potions to conveniently form alchemy is what would be used for permanent transfigurations == transmutations.

One subject tricky to explain is that of Conjuration. A lot of fics like to equate transfiguring air to conjuring something, but that doesn't feel right to me. I like to think of conjured objects being made of pure magic. Perhaps it could be put this way: transfigured objects, having a real base + magic would last longer than conjured ones, which would be just magic. Incantations for conjured objects are harder to conceptualize than for transfiguration, but they would presumably be along the same vein.

Edit: Crap. I had this written earlier and posted it without seeing Warlocke's theory, which turns out to be basically the same thing. Oh well. Validation is always good.

 

Addressing the idea of conjuration: it's not changing the air or anything like that.

In OotP McGonagall introduces Vanishing as the opposite to Conjuration.

In DH McGonagall says that vanishing sends objects into non-being.

We can now define conjuration.

P1. Conjuring does the opposite to vanishing.
P2. Vanishing sends objects into non-being.

C. Conjuring brings objects out of non-being.

Addressing the idea of permanent transfiguration:

I see no reason why all transfigurations aren't permanent, unless untransfigured.

We know that transfiguration changes the very properties of an object, rather than just being an illusion or an effect superimposed on an object, like a Charm.

Once you have changed one object into another, what reason is there for this to revert?

For example, if you have changed a block of copper to iron, you have changed every atom from a copper atom to an iron atom. It's as if it had always been iron. What force is there that would cause it to revert? None.

This is also supported by Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

In this, we are told of a creature (The Quintaped) that was once a family of wizards who self-transfigured themselves into this creature. Several generations later, Quintapeds are still being born. The transfiguration appears to be permanent.

Addressing how I think canon transfiguration works:

I think Warlock got it right. There are obviously set spells for specific effects (e.g. Avis, or from the movies Vera Verto).

This, however, is not practical.

Wizards must therefore be able to apply general principles to a wider range.

How this is done is up for grabs. One possibility is that there are a few, more general spells (e.g. one spell for object-object transfiguration, one spell for object-animal transfiguration, etc.).

Another possibility is that transfiguration transcends spells, and becomes more of a thinking process - like Occlumency - than a spell.

I'm in favour of the second. It ties in well with my theory that eventually the most skilled of wizards can perform magic just by thinking of the effect they desire.

This stems from non-verbal magic. From thinking the incantation though non-verbally in your mind, to the spell being cast simply by you thinking of the incantation, rather than enunciating it in your mind.

And then from simply having to think of an incantation to cast a spell, it follows that you'd just have to think of the spell itself to be thinking by association of the incantation, so you'd just have to think of the spell to cast it.

And then from there all you'd have to be thinking about is your desire to create an effect to think of the spell by association, to think of the incantation by association, all the way back to the beginning.

So a very very skilled wizard (and I'm talking Albus Dumbledores here) could have been able to simply do magic by desiring an effect. But this would only come after many years of the above stages: non-verbal casting, faster non-verbal casting, spell casting and then effect casting.

Finally, and back to a familiar issue:

You're misunderstanding this idea of magical theory.

The idea is not that all wizards have the same level of raw power - it's that the idea of raw power is nonsensical.

A powerful wizard is one that casts powerful spells.

Powerful spells are the result of casting the spells well.

Casting a spell well results from your skill.

Thus, a powerful wizard is a skillful wizard.

The idea of "raw power" doesn't come into it.

This is compatible with the "magic = muscle" idea.

As your practice more, you become better at magic. As you become better at magic, you cast more powerful spells. As you cast more powerful spells, you are by definition becoming a more powerful wizard. Thus, a wizard who "exercises" his magic is a more powerful wizard.

This is not to say all wizards are born equal, for not all wizards are born with equal amounts of those things that contribute to skill.

The theory also allows for more versatility. For example, generally weak wizards can cast powerful spells if they receive a boost to one of the components of magical skill (e.g. Neville, a usually weak wizard, becoming more powerful as he receives a boost of confidence - a large part of spell casting). And visa versa.

"Skill" here is defined as all those things that impact spell casting. To name some, but not all, of these things: Intelligence, knowledge, technique, instincts, creativity, practice, mental focus, emotional control (or lack of), improvisation, will power and confidence.

Finally, the theory does allow for a small amount of magical exhaustion. After a long period of casting spells, a person would get exhausted - not because he has expended his magic or worn it out or any such idea, but because he is losing his grip on his skill. For example, mental focus is a large part of skill, but after focusing for a long time this will slip, effecting the person's magic, weakening their spells.

 

If that's the case, couldn't one just transfigure things into Galleons as was needed (or even just acquire all necessities through transfiguration)? Or does this tie into skill, thus making it impossible for none but the most powerful of wizards to achieve?

I suppose then, that if one were to have a grasp of Occlumency to the infinite, one would never wear out save through the other components of skill. This leads to another point: does mastery of Transfiguration lend itself to superb Occlumency skills should one choose to develop them?

Another thing: Do you think the general wizarding populace is adept at nonverbal magic? There is a heavy emphasis on this in the later years of Hogwarts education, but outside of Hogwarts several curses are uttered out loud by veteran duelers. Are curses in a separate category (than Transfiguration or Charms) when it comes to nonverbal magic? If not, then one can only assume the Unforgivables are only uttered for emphasis.

 

No, I think the general wizarding populace is incompetent. Most can't even cast shield charms remember. I think the average wizard doesn't pass the NEWTs (or at least doesn't pass well) and remains at OWL level of magic - thus why the OWLs are the Ordinary Wizarding Levels.

This depends entirely on your conception of Occlumency. Plus, no one would ever reach a grasp of Occlumency to the infinite, so it's a moot point.

This is a problem JKR wrote herself into, and she's spent several books and interviews worming her way out of it.

Firstly, as you say, most wizards wouldn't have the skill to make themselves things such as clothes from transfiguration.

Secondly, the MoM has passed laws on what you can and can't use magic to get for yourself.

Thirdly, she has created several laws of magic to provide exceptions to the general rule. For example, you can't conjure food or transfigure anything into gold (unless you have a Philosophers stone).

 

Taure, while I do like your theory how wizards become more powerful due to casting more powerful spells, which comes from increasing your skill and overall proficiency with magic (ie magic = muscle), I must say that I'm a fan of the idea that wizards are born with varying levels of magical power. I don't know why, but for some reason the idea that every witch or wizard is magically equal from the start disturbing.

Also, despite what JKR said in the interview where she nerfed varying power levels, I think canon lends credence to the idea that wizards and witches are indeed born with varying power levels. For this I have a few reasons which can probably be refuted as I'm not going through the books to collect evidence at this time (Once I gather enough evidence, I might try to refute your theory of magic in your thread).

For my first point, why is being 'powerful' magically mentioned so often throughout canon? Remember when Hagrid meets Harry for the first time? One of the first things he said to Harry was "You're a powerful wizard Harry" (paraphrased). How does Hagrid know that Harry is powerful? If you become powerful through skill and proficiency in magic, and putting aside the fact that Hagrid knew basically nothing about Harry except for the fact that he lived with awful muggles, how could he possibly know that Harry is a powerful wizard? Was he just comparing Harry to his parents which I believe were described as being powerful themselves? Hermione also makes a comment about Harry being a powerful wizard when she solved Snape's potions riddle in PS if I remember correctly. Did they just judge Harry wrong, or give him too much credit? Harry shows in canon that he is not powerful or exceptional with magic (besides the Patronus), and that he is just slightly above average. Barty Crouch Sr. is described by Dumbledore as being magically powerful in GoF. Why is there such an emphasis on describing certain wizards as powerful if wizards and witches are not born with varying levels of available magic?

I would also like to go into the idea of childhood accidental magic. Why do some wizards and witches have more numerical and powerful incidences of accidental magic in their childhood than others? We know Harry was able to apparate to the roof of a building, change his teachers hair blue, vanish the glass in the snake house, and regrow his hair when his aunt cut it badly. Comparing that to Neville who I believe showed no accidental magic until his uncle dropped him out of a window, does this not seem like Harry is a more powerful wizard than Neville? Also, some wizards are able to actually control their accidental magic without a focus (Tom Riddle), so doesn't this lend to the idea that Tom was a more powerful wizard than Harry and much more powerful than Neville?

I can't think of anything else in the fourth and fifth book to help me with this idea, but lets go to HBP for my next reason. Remember when Harry and Dumbledore were in the cave? Dumbledore had just found the hidden doorway and the secret boat. When going across the water I believe Dumbledore mentions that there is either a spell or device that measures the power of the wizard crossing, and I believe he makes a comment about Harry not registering next to Dumbledore. Why would he make that comment if he wasn't much more magically powerful than Harry? Why would there even be a device to measure the amount of power in a wizard if all wizards have the same innate amount of power? It does not make sense. I believe that the only explanation for this is that wizards and witches are not magically equal. It seems to me that JKR (going against what is implied in canon), just nerfed the 'varying power levels' idea for no reason.

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head why I deny that all wizards and witches are equal. I'm sure I could find more evidence in canon to support my theory if I actually went through the books again, but that would take forever. And as much as I would like to prove my theory that wizards and witches are born with varying levels of power, it just doesn't seem worth the time. Basically, I ignore JKR in this aspect of magical theory because it seems to me that canon doesn't support the idea, and that JKR threw it out there for no apparent reason.

 

Yes.

Yes. Hermione spoke of Harry's bravery and selflessness, which she views as more important than magical ability. When she called him a "great wizard", she meant it in the same way we would call someone a great man.

Your confusing some wizards being more powerful than others with the idea that wizards are born with different levels of innate magical power.

See this thread:

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=8412

Accidental magic occurs due to moments of high emotion, not power. Some children have more stable childhoods, and therefore less times of high emotion, and therefore less accidental magic.

Also, accidental magic seems to produce a solution to a need. Some needs will be stronger than others, and will require a more impressive solution. Thus, some accidental magic is more impressive than others.

It shows that Harry's childhood was worse than Neville's, and therefore needed accidental magic more.

To me this says that Tom Riddle learnt how to control his emotions, which trigger accidental magic.

Again, you're getting the idea of power mixed up.

Same thread as before:

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=8412

 

*sigh*

If I was better able to put my thoughts down and argue better, this would be easier. I feel like debating with you on this will just keep going in circles until I get fed up, mostly because while your theory is plausible I just don't like it, and despite what JKR says, I can't accept it.

It seems to me that JKR couldn't decide between the two theories of magic in the first 5 books, and then picked the theory that wizards are magically equal in power and specifically tried to make book 6 and 7 support that theory, which I believe it does (one poster brought up quite a few lines from DH which keep mentioning skill). I guess it comes down to the fact that while there is canon evidence supporting your theory, there is canon evidence to support an alternate theory which I (and some others) are in favor of.

 

This is a misconception.

I am using a completely different definition of power than you.

From the other thread:

I'm not saying that all wizards are born with an equal amount of raw magical power, I'm saying that the idea of raw magical power is completely irrelevant. My theory does state that some wizards are more powerful than others. But I say that this has nothing to do with any idea of raw magical strength.

 

Ah. This makes it somewhat clearer. I can't say I fully agree with you, but I'm not completely against it either. I guess I'm arguing against JKR then, and not you. It's good though that you put a lot of thought into your theory unlike most fanfic authors that either half ass it, or don't explain it altogether.

 

I know canon says this, so this isn't an attack on your theory or anything, and if you think it's apropriate, you can ask a mod to spin this off into another thread. But I've long puzzled over that statement on DH and the more I think of it, the less I think it makes sense. Old buddy Wittgenstein would probably have a fit if he had ever read it.
How the hell can you bring something from non-being? If non-being isn't, how could you get anything from it?
It gets worse, because afterwards McGonnagal states that non-being is everything. THis is even more nonsensical. Non-being can't be everything, because everything 'is', and non-being, by definition, does not. Morever, how can you bring something out of everything. That something is included within the set of 'everything', so you'd be bringing something out of... itself?

 

Yes, I've thought over the idea a lot too.

The Wittgensteinian objection - like most Wittgensteinian objections - I find rather ineffective, since it's just an objection to the language being used - the presentation of the idea - rather than then idea itself. However...

I take "bring something out of non-being" to mean the same thing as "creating something out of nothing". This is certainly not an illogical concept, since it's the prevailing theory in Physics that the universe was created (and I'm using the word "created" loosely here - no implication of a creator or intent) from nothing.

Once you add magic to the mix, I see no reason to object to the idea that a wizard is able to magic something out of nothing. It breaks one of the most central rules of nature to be sure (that energy cannot be created or destroyed) but magic by nature tramples over physics all the time.

Alternatively, JKR could subscribe to a Platonic type of philosophy. When talking of bringing something out of non-being, she could be thinking of making physical the idea - form - of something. So, you have the idea, or form of a chair. This form isn't physical, it's just an idea in an abstract sense. When you conjure something, you are taking the form of the chair and making it physical.

A third meaning can come from the fact that JKR has said in an interview that conjured items do not last. They've been brought out of non-being, so it could be said that their base essence - what Spinoza would call their substance - remains that of non-being. After a while, they return to non-being, as it is their nature. So a conjured item never really changed from not-existing - it is just temporarily brought into the world. This would contrast with Transfiguration, which I believe is permanent, due to the fact that the base essence of that which is transfigured is that of being. Conjured objects have a reason to revert - they are in essence nothing - whereas transfigured items do not.

Hmm...

My explanation for this would be that, due to the very nature of the idea of non-being - nothingness - non-being has no specific location. The non-being that vanished objects go to doesn't have a location. Thus, it is accessible everywhere. Thus, it is everywhere. If it is everywhere, then it is also everything.

 

I had always thought that conjuring, while making something out of nothing, does not actually violate the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What if conjuring is simply a transfer or transformation of energy? A wizard's magic is the energy, and it is transfered and transformed from the wizard, through the wand, and into the world where it becomes the conjured object. No energy is created or destroyed, it just takes another form (that of the conjured object). This allows for a law where the more energy (magic) you put into a conjuration, the greater in mass it will be. This could explain DD's uber conjurations in canon which no one else can seem to do. Going by this law, either Dumbledore puts a shitload of magic into his conjurations, or he is just that much more powerful than the average wizard so it allows him to conjure hundreds of sleeping bags and huge, detailed chairs when the average wizard can only conjure something maybe 10% or so of what Dumbledore can. This is pure speculation, but if you go by this theory then one of the most central laws of the universe is not violated.

What do you think?

 

It's possible. I would adjust it subtly to read as follows though:

What if conjuring is simply a transfer or transformation of energy? A wizard's spell is the energy, and it is transferred and transformed from the spell, cast through the wand, and into the world where it becomes the conjured object. No energy is created or destroyed, it just takes another form (that of the conjured object). This allows for a law where the better you cast the conjuration spell, the more complex the objects can be and they will last longer. This could explain Dumbledore's uber-conjurations in canon which no one else can seem to do (the sleeping bags in POA for example). He is an extraordinarily skilled wizard, especially in the area of Transfiguration, and so his conjuration spell is very good. This is pure speculation, but if you go by this theory then one of the most central laws of the universe is not violated.

 

Good call. While I check over my posts for obvious spelling and grammar errors, sometimes my wording can use improvement.

edit: I also have a habit of referring to raw power when it's obvious that you don't believe magic works like that.

 

Demons In The Night touched on something I'd wondered about for a while when he mentioned memories and consciousness in a transfigured animal. It seemed like there was at least some sort of ability to direct a conjured animal, because Cedric transfigured rocks into dogs and had those distract his dragon in GoF. I think if a dog appeared next to a dragon, it would probably just run away, instead of help Cedric.

Another point I'd wondered about with transfiguration is *anything*-to-human transfiguration. If in other cases, you can create life, the dogs for example, why couldn't you create human life? What's so different about transfiguring a statue of a person into a living breathing human, than the same for any other animal?

Anyway, if both of those work, can anybody say free sex slave? Free army?