I really am. I mean, it seems like the wand is the focal point of magic. Sure, there are times when magic has been done without a wand, and the most prominent of those happens in the third MOVIE, but still, it seems to be a massive cliche (how do you do the little accent thing?). Sure I can see the possibility of magic without a wand, but I don't think it's possible for Harry to cast Expecto Patronum without a wand, nor Stupefy, etc. I mean, all of those spells just scream "Wand magic" to me.

I can, however, see the possibilty of something like "Foci-less" or "Unfocused" magic, whereing magic is used without the wand (the focus). However, I see thiss magic as being something like in "The Lord of the Rings": the harnessing of an inborn supernatural power. And when I say "foci-less", I mean it: no staffs, crappy swords, etc. I guess I just see a wand as being like the key component to the spells in canon: magic comes from the core, is manipulated through the body and mind, and is sent through the wand which essentially packs all of the magic into whatever form it needs to be. This is assuming that magic is like plasma or something (liquid-ish) and the wand packs all of that together. Thus, spells lose strength as they progress because the packing (if one considers it like a field) fades, and the magic dissipates.

Unfocused magic would be more like sending magic in waves and manipulating the environment to do things: lightning bolts, fire, etc.

I also think it would be cool if Harry's magic wasn't in a core. This would explain why he performs averagely in school, that and the fact that he doesn't study or apply himself. I could see something wherein the AK that was cast on him as a baby shattered his core, but the prophecy, combined with the protection provided by his mother (should that actually exist) kept his magic from leaving his body. The prophecy needs him to be able to fight Voldemort equally. However, the magic cannot reform into a "core." Therefore, it spreads out equally through his body, centered along the veins, arteries, and heart. The magic isn't in his blood, more like in a magical plane his body resides in.

When he casts magic, the magic in his body tries to activate and send magic to the wand. But as he doesn't focus, the magic doesn't build up enough. So to activate his magic, Harry needs to focus on the magic, fanning the spark of his magic into an inferno in order to get the most power out of his spells. While he did not really fan his magic at the time, this would perhaps be a good explanation for an author as to how Harry was able to cast a powerful patronus when he was saving Sirius: he was in an excited state and the excitement activated his magic to the point that such a powerful spell would be executed.

This is all just theory of course, and anyone can feel free to use it in their stories, should anyone actually like this.

 

Start -->All Program--> Accesories --> System Tools --> Character Map

For the è

 

I think wandless magic should be able to be used to do things like open curtains, levitate stuff, possibly even push people.

 

Agreed, wandless magic is unfocused, raw, and simple. I wouldn't even require any incantations, except maybe a simple statment to focus yourself. Thrust your hand out, focus your intent (e.g. "Move!"), throw the magic away from you, and watch Snape get thrown out a window. I can't really believe in a wandless stupefy or disarming spell, just a blast of power with a simple job to do. Maybe a defensive bubble shield or blast of magic to harm, but no "converntional" spells.

 

Kinda like "pushing" from Draco664's Journeyman Potter

 

There is some evidence for controlled wandless magic in canon (Quirrel with the ropes), but we don't really know much about it.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it works in a similar way to non-verbal magic.

It is a popular idea in fanon that a spell is just a way of focusing magic and that words and wand movements are just tools to help you focus and hold no power of themselves.

Canonically speaking, this is not true. After all, if the words of a spell were just ways to help you focus then if you were willing something to happen and said the wrong words to a spell the thing you were willing to happen would still happen.

This is obviously not true, as we learn in PS/SS about the wizard Barrufio (sp?) who said the wrong words to a spell and had a completely different effect. Obviously the words themselves have power, as shown by the fact that even in non-verbal magic the words are still said - just in the head.

The same theory could apply to the wand. The wrong wand movement obviously achieves the wrong effect (Seamus burning his feather rather than floating it) so you can't just get rid of the wand completely and still be able to perform normal spells.

But perhaps, keeping the way non-verbal magic works in mind, you can visualise the wand movements in your mind, just like you think the words, and the spell would have an effect wandlessly. For all we know this might be taught in the 7th year of Hogwarts, just like non-verbal magic is taught in the 6th.

This would take a hell of a lot of metal power - more than non-verbal magic - and most wizards wouldn't be able to do it. Combining it with non-verbal magic would be even harder: imagine having to picture a wand movement and say an incantation in your mind at the same time, whilst keeping in mind what is happening in the world outside.

I would also propose that this only works for some spells and not the others. Spells like Avada Kedavra which are a jet of light I would say would not work wandlessly as there is nothing for the spell to materialise from. So I would say that wandless magic would only work for spells that have an invisible spell effect.

Of course, this is all controlled wandless magic - there is of course accidental magic in canon that is wandless, but this is uncontrolled, emotion based, and appears to disappear as a wizard ages.

The only evidence of accidental magic being harnessed is by Tom Riddle when he was young, obviously he was able to manipulate his emotions into getting the magic to happen; but notice how he abandoned this wandless and unfocused magic for normal wand magic - obviously controlled accidental magic is inferior to wand magic, and probably takes more time getting worked into a particular emotional state.

 

What you said does make sense, since Tom and Harry are supposed to be equals, according to the prophecy. In the books, Tom and Harry use their wandless magic to a greater effect than any other character, the only difference being that Tom uses his intentionally, while Harry uses wandless magic without knowing what he does.

 

The problem with this (or the solution if you want to look at it like that) is that again, it is all in the intent (BTW i don't actually agree with what I'm about to argue, but I thought i might as well play devil's Advocate).

We see a lot of evidence in the world (both real life and inside fantasy worlds) that the mind has a large power over the body. It is theorised that we only use % of our brain capacity.

We see in canon that you do have to focus on the intent of the spell as well completing the wand movement and incantation for it to complete. For example, a Crucio does not work unless you are thinkning about hurting someone, even if you did the incantation and wand movements correctly (ANother By the way, has anyone ever wodnered where Harry learned the wand movement for Crucio).

Combined with your Taure's arguments about wand movement and incantation, you can assume that there are 3 parts to a aspell - Incantation, Movement and Intent

However, if you take the route of intent being the most important, then we can easily view wand movement and incantation as distractions.

Students have been taught that they must get the wand movement and incantation perfect, or they will suffer the consequences. THis is probably a long held belief in the magical world.

In real life, however, we see many cases of people being told that they cannot do something and then not being able to do it, whereas they might have been able to if they had 'belief.'

It could be argued then, that because canon characters have been taught that incantation and wand movement are vital to the spell, they become vital to the spell in the child's mind. This causes it to become vital for all forms of magic.

If, however, a child grew up with magic bt not the rules of magic (see Tom RIddle here), he/she can harness the so-called 'accidental magic.' However, as soon as you want it to happen and specifically focus upon such a thing happening, the magic no longer is accidental and is intentional, if not focused.

[arghh i know i've not argued that as well as I could hav, but I'm really, really tired today - it was a long night last night running around the countryside with a blank firing gun strapped to my back. Go Air Training Corps]

 

The problem with this is that if a student had the intent to cast a particular spell, and thought they were getting the incantation and wand movement right, then the spell would work, even if the words were actually wrong.

For example:

A student is trying to do the patronus charm. They have a sufficiently happy memory to make the charm work(the intent), but instead of saying Expecto Patronum, they are saying Expecto Patronus, which they think is the right incantation.

According to the theory you proposed, as they believe this to be the correct incantation, and they have the intent, the spell should work, as that is the incantation that is "vital to the spell in the child's mind".

But the spell wouldn't work, because the words are wrong, just as when Ron thought that he was getting the levitation charm right nothing happened and Hermione had to correct him. Apparently it's not just about intent and the words do have a power of their own.

 

I think Captain G's theory holds some truth to it, but is just to easy for a story. I believe in the fact that most people's limitations are set by themselves, especially if you can throw a force like magic in the mix. The only problem is that makes for a horrible story, with an incredibly overpowered Harry if he ever figures out magic before Hogwarts.

I have to go with the burst of power theory for good reading and writing. Nothing really but an invisible force that can push in any direction. This can still leave room for things other than pushing though, maybe pushing from opposite directions to crush someone, or pushing from underground to make a n earthen barrier. I can see things like that being possible without making the story to Super!Harry.

 

I think that the movements and words might just act as two more methods of focus (the primary being the wand gathering all the energy to one point). Take the exploding feather in first year charms. He said the levitation spell, he moved the wand for the levitation spell, but in his heart he was frustrated and wanted to destroy this stupid feather that wouldnt work right! I think that his intent to harm the feather overrod the words and movements.

HOWEVER, if a student is trained early on that these words and this movements generate this result, it becomes a subconscious expectation. The words and movements focus the mind so that little distractions (like wanting to kill this stupid feather) don't override the spell at the last minute. Magic I think is a fickle thing that either requires godlike mental discipline (to maintain perfectly focused intent), or a series of focussing elements to control. Without theose elements, it is wild and accidental.

Even if you consider the case of young Tom Riddle and his enchanting voice, you must consider how the magic was being used, and what the foci were. There was a vocal command, "tell me the truth", a desire to discover that truth, and a focal point (his tongue/voicebox). So in effect we had a incantation, intent, a focus, all we were missing was a movement. Other instances of canon wandless magic (Snape cleaning a cauldron with a swirl of his hand) have similar characteristics. Snape had intent, a point to focus on (his hand), and a movement, with a vocal component missing and he used this to basically create one of those giant foam hand things of magic around his hand. The magic hand of doom absorbed the potion sludge like a sponge or rag.

I think in both of those instances much better than average mental control was needed because they were lacking one or more of the components that help tame their magic.

Harry's apperation however (and apperation in general) is actually not wandless magic at all, just sufficiently advanced science. Magic may help with the number crunching, but it's hard science at the core. Heisenberg says you cannot know an object's exact location and speed at the same time. One of them will always be unknown. Schrodinger taught us that observation changes the results. Ergo, if we can observe (via magic or machine) *exactly* how fast we are moving with respect to the rest of the universe, we would no longer be able to determine our location. Once we are in this undetermined state, having the same odds of being anywhere in the universe simultaneously, we must simply observe ourselve to be in one location and let our speed become indeterminite. Physics will kick in and declare conservation of momentum (less entropy, yay Newton!) meaning that we remain at *effectively* the same speed (hopefully standing still).though some variance is to be expected in the minor vectors and such of minute particles.

BTW, if I ever get my computer to do the math needed, you'll be the first ones to know. Newton, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg agree it's theoretically possible but that application is a bitch. If it isn't possible, their so called "Laws" are bunk.

EDIT; PS, I would assume that after seeing the spell demonstrated enough (aka used against him and his friends) Harry might pick up the movements to the cruciatus curse. Or else as I was stating earlier, the movements are only another focusing method, which would explain who Harry's curse was underpowered. He certainly wanted to cause Bella pain, he might not enjoy it necessarily, but he did want to hurt her.

 

It's possible that some spells don't have movements, just an incantation, and Crucio could be one of these. Or Harry could have picked up the movement from watching Moody. Or there could be a movement, and Harry got it wrong, which might have been another reason why the curse didn't work.

All three are reasonable arguments.

I haven't got much more to say on the subject of wandless magic, but there is one thing I'd like to clear up which always annoys me.

Harry never apperated pre-Hogwarts! People often say that he did - another common deception of fanon - but if you look at the actual book it says that Harry attempted to jump behind a bin and ended up on the roof instead. Sounds to me more like a jumping spell than apperation. Besides, apperation is a twisting movement, not a jump.

 

I think, and this is mearly my own theory with no real evidence to back it up, that the reason that the 'word' and 'movements' have the effect is based on a law of magic from another series(forget witch it is).

Basiclly when you 'create' spell its incredibly hard to do, however the repeated uses of the spell basiclly 'carve' a channel in the magic of the world, and so it becomes increasingly easy to follow that path. If you want to deviate, it gets much much harder. This explains why the words and movements have the effect that they do. A mental picture of what you want is still important, however it also leaves us with the effect of what happened to that wizard who conjured a buffolo on himself.

 

Yeah I've seen that theory in quite a few fanfics but from HBP, where we gained a small glimpse of spell creation, it doesn't hold too much weight.

When Snape created, for example, the Levicorpus spell, the way he went about it was not so much through creation as discovery. Basically, he tried different combinations of words and sounds until he came across the one that worked, or produced the effect he wanted.

This seems to indicate that all the spells in the world are already out there - the words that hold them just need to be discovered.

 

I know but that sounds ... so stupid.

 

In my story (if you ignore Harry's god-like powers) it theorizes that, while any spell can be done either wanded or wandlessly, most work better one way or the other. For example, shields that form a sphere around the body would work better wandlessly because all of your magic doesn't need to go though the focus and then spread out because it could just come out of your body that way. A patronus, however, would work better to come from a focus, since it is a concentrated burst of magic rather than a field.

 

Wandless magic is possible in Canon, as seen in POA where Lupin creates a floating blue flame in his hand. The PoA movie is also chock-full of wandless magic, something that JKR would never have allowed if it was impossible. I agree about the whole stunners from the hand thing...very Dragonball Z, not cool.