And apparently, somebody found it necessary to ban me from IRC for a while, so I won't be able to continue our discussion until that's lifted. Anyway, what I was trying to say was something like this:

I'm not saying that there are things that don't conform to different aspects of science, but I don't see anything fundamentally contradicting the laws of physics, with the caveat that momentum is apparently not conserved in every instance.

Note also that, considering this is an alternate universe (highly likely, unless you really want to argue that all of this truly happened), it could have physical laws different from our own. As long as they remain consistent and logical in the universe it's set in, I'll be satisfied.

It is just my personal opinion that the laws are as close to our own while still allowing the things that are unexplainable with our own laws of physics. Thus, while I can accept that an object can levitate without an apparent force acting upon it, I cannot accept a wizard surviving a nuclear blast with a shield charm; that's just far too much suspension of disbelief. Again, this is just my opinion. Other interpretations aren't wrong, I just don't agree with them.

As to magical fatigue (which this topic has strayed from rather far), again, open to interpretation. In my future fic, it will occur once, though not to the extreme that is often portrayed and for somewhat different reasons than those involving a "magical core."

Anyway, /thread derail.

 

...

That's the point of units, they're arbitrary. Sometimes we make them convenient, and sometimes we have good reasons for their choice, but they don't need to have some transcendant justification.

 

I consider the first of these two the more unbelievable act. The disbelief that someone could survive a nuclear blast with a shield charm comes from a lack of imagination, and simply thinking too much like a Muggle.

1. A nuclear bomb unleashes a lot of destruction, to be sure. But to survive that destruction a wizard does not have to counteract the entire energy of the nuclear blast. Not even 1% of it, really. A nuclear blast has a radius of what, several miles? A wizard has to make a safe space of something like 1 metre by 1 metre by 2 metres. It's not so difficult when you put it like that.

2. While the above argument is a good way to convince people, it's actually a very bad argument, in my opinion, because it commits the error of still thinking in terms of magic as energy or the shield charm acting like a computer program. Like:

Code:

If(heat > 40, gamma rays, X rays, microwaves, kinetic energy > X) 
block; 

else 

Allow;

Or whatever.

I don't really think that's how magic works. Rather the shield charm is simply something that protects you. The magic, as it were, does the thinking for you.

And magic as energy doesn't make sense either. There's no energy that does that many things. Sure, you can say that it's a fictional form of energy, but that's just another way of saying that it's not energy. If all of its attributes are different to the energy we know and love, then calling it energy is merely a linguistic trick. Might as well just call it magic. Moreover, as calling it "energy" is but a matter of semantics rather than the actual nature of the thing being discussed, trying to argue how magic should or shouldn't behave from what we know about energy is making a logical error (mistaking them having the same name for having the same nature).

Thirdly, if you really are determined to maintain that magic is energy, and maintain that arguing about magic from what physics says about energy makes sense (for example, making arguments about how a shield charm wouldn't have the energy to stop a bullet, where it would a thrown stone; or making arguments about how it couldn't stop a nuclear blast) then there's one final problem:

1. E = MC^2.

2. Wizards create matter.

3. Wizards create energy.

4. Wizards make matter in sizeable amounts. The most conservative upper bounds still allow ~10kg of matter created (e.g. a desk).

5. By (1), that's E = 10*299,792,458^2. So E = 8.9 x 10^17 Joules.

6. Wizards do this casually, without being tired out by the act, and can go on to perform the feat again, or perform other magic. Apparently indefinitely. Let us say, very conservatively, that a wizard can cast a conjuring spell, conjuring something like a desk, 50 times before he tires himself. Or, if conjuring makes the argument dodgy (due to its non-permanence), transfiguring something into a desk from something smaller. (I call this conservative as I would say that, so long as a wizard is capable of casting a piece of magic, he can cast it infinitely).

7. So that's 8.9 x 10^17 J x 50. That gives a wizard approximately 4.5 x 10^19 J energy at his disposal (and he will regenerate it fairly rapidly).

8. The largest nuclear bomb man has ever detonated, the Tzar Bomba, had a yield of 210,000 TJ. That's 2.1 x 10^17 J.

Wizards' available energy reservoir, if you conceive of magic as energy, using conservative figures for the amount of magical activity a wizard can produce before he tires:

4.5 x 10^19 J

Energy of man's largest nuclear bomb:

2.1 x 10^17 J

Wikipedia's entry on that bomb:

9. So, if you accept that a wizard's magic is energy, it looks like each wizard has the energy to unleash 214 of these.

So... still claiming that a wizard's magic is energy, or that its unlikely that they can protect themselves from a nuclear blast?

 

Lol Oz, it will also mean that wizards can last longer than witches, and that masturbation is a great way to improve your magical ability.

...

I like this theory.

 

Or curling, but lol at equating masturbation with exercise. I feel an exercise e-book scam coming on...

 

You assume, Taure, that they really do conjure things out of nothing. I propose that this is not true. Instead, the wizard takes matter that is already present (i.e. air) and rearranges their molecular and, if necessary, atomic structure to the desired state. This will take a fair amount of energy, true, but orders of magnitude less than your values. This in turn implies that conjuring won't work in a vacuum, but we have no knowledge of wizards ever attempting to conjure in a vacuum.

Also, Taure, in response that the shield charm is meant to protect, that's fine. A bullet-proof vest does the same thing, but if you get attacked by a mini-gun, chances are high that you'll die anyway. However, that kinda ties in to your power debate.

Oz, I suppose the difficulty is, as a physicist, it's difficult for me to suspend what I intend to study my entire life, even in a fictional setting. Thus, I try my best to frame my understanding around physics. I know Sesc is able to do this, but we're different people; to me, it's just uncomfortable. Plus, I find it entertaining to try and put magic into a scientific context, primarily because it isn't easy and it forces me to construct an abstract framework in my head, and that's just fun.

Sesc, the problem is, as you said, that we just disagree on the place of magic in science. Your interpretation is as valid as mine, I think, it's just that mine is more comfortable to me. Incidentally, I fall squarely in the Muggle camp in the Muggle vs. Wizard debate, but that's another matter entirely.

Finally (damn, I didn't mean this post to be this long...), don't take everything I say too seriously; it is, after all, a discussion on a Harry Potter fanfiction forum, not the fucking United Nations. Vash told me that I need to stop taking things so seriously, and I'm trying, but I think the advice is also valid for a few people here, too.

 

You suppose wrongly.

In DH we're told that vanishing sends objects "into the ether which is to say, nowhere". Not air.

In OotP we're told that conjuring and vanishing are opposite processes.

Thus conjuring is the opposite to vanishing, which is bringing objects out of nothing. Not air.

Further, transfiguration can increase mass, so an objection directed against conjuration alone doesn't work anyway.

A bullet proof vest has certain properties. Whether or not any X gets through the vest depends on these properties, and those of the X.

I suggest this is not the case with the shield charm. I suggest that a shield charm doesn't have some fixed set of properties, but rather is whatever it needs to be (this is what I meant with regards to not thinking about it in computer science terms). Given the flexibility of the charm in canon, I would say that this is somewhat supported.

As such, the shield charm has pretty much got you covered with regards to all kinds of mundane threat, because it adapts to meet them. It's magic that's the problem.

 

The actual quote (Christ, you made me open up DH again, something I swore never to do) is, "Into nonbeing, which is to say, everything." This can be metaphorically interpreted as matter, which is (in everyday experience on Earth) primarily what "everything" is composed of. I'll grant that it's open to different interpretations, but I believe that I've already mentioned that my argument is but one interpretation of the HP universe.

Again, a matter of interpretation.

 

Bullshit. "Non-being" =/= matter.

 

Not sure if I understood correctly, but you think that the mass of conjured objects comes from the surrounding air? So if you conjure a moderately heavy piece of furniture (say about Taure's weight) in a closed room of around 100 m3 and an air density around 1.2 kg.m-3, you have maybe 25% of the 120kg of air in the room that vanish (which would be fucking dangerous, and not an extreme case). That's all very convincing. I think we might have noticed everyone's ears popping every time someone waves their wand.

 

Add on to this that in a classroom environment where there are many people capable of this act in one room... If even a tenth of them did it at once you'd have a room full of children asphyxiating every time.

 

Methinks Taure is just pissed because he got out-canoned there. I only wish I had been the one to do it, since I know that quote by heart. And I know it because that quote from McGonnagal is one of the most interesting to me (as I consider the Transfiguration Professor to be a pretty damn reliable source of information) about the nature or theory of magic.

To me, I at first thought of the "everything" as literally as possible, picturing the Vanished object's individual atoms being dispersed and added to other objects. You could think of it as (a) the Vanished item's atoms are distributed mostly into the surrounding environment just locally, whereas every object within just, say, Hogwarts or so would have atoms added to its mass, or (b) the Vanished item's atoms are distributed to every object in the world, adding a few atoms to, literally, "everything".

While I still like the idea of that, and if you take the (b) view, you can overcome all that "all the air has to leave the room to Conjure a quill" business, it overall makes the HP series seem a little less "magical" to me when you introduce the Conservation of Matter concept into it. I mean, when fake-Moody Transfigured Malfoy into a ferret, it was still Malfoy, but as a ferret, and I don't want to think that part of Draco Malfoy was turned into a ferret and part of him was distributed into the surrounding environs, only to be recalled when Malfoy was changed back. That's just ridiculous, and completely outside of the whole "it's magic!" concept that all us of love about Harry Potter.

-------------------

@mknote: I understand your whole having-a-hard-time-with-suspension-of-disbelief, but seriously, just let it go. Your would-be professional life is best kept entirely and forever separate from your leisure life in this instance.

I remember reading Superman, Green Lantern, X-Men, Ghost Rider, Iron Man, G.I. Joe and a hundred other comic books when I was a kid and lapping up what I thought were all the possibilities. Then when I got to college, I went back to try reading a few titles again, but as I had begun studying to be an engineer, all the concepts of physics and thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and etc. etc. were killing my enjoyment of the stories. I had known even as a kid that a lot of these were probably not possible, but with black-and-white evidence in my mind it was harder.

Until I decided to just go with it, just accept that there was a disconnect between "real" or "possible" and what I was reading. What I was reading was fantasy, or just plain entertainment, and I had to leave my rational and skeptical mind at the door, at least to the extent of questioning the underlying framework of the world about which I was reading.

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary, but for what it's worth, I think you'll ultimately enjoy both your work and your pleasure reading much more if you provide some disconnect between the two.

On a related note, though, you can always piss off your wife with derisive comments like, "Yeah, suuure he could hold her up with one hand," or, "Moron, nuclear reactors don't work like that!" during the middle of a movie she's enjoying. Just sayin'.

 

If you look at the statement itself, it must be interpreted metaphorically. "Into nonbeing, which is to say, everything," taken literally, means that everything is in nonbeing, which either uses a meaning for nonbeing different than what we use, or is patently false. Also, the knocker says "Well stated," not "That is correct." This, I think, implies that the statement is metaphorical. The question, then, is whether the "nonbeing" part or "everything" part is closer to the truth. Again, interpretation.

I'll explain my interpretation in a minute.

I must concede this point. There is no way that conjured objects are made from air. I do have another explanation, however, and I freely admit that it is stretching very far and highly implausible, but not impossible.

Consider a parallel plane of existence that is filled with inert matter. There are theoretical models in which it is possible to cross planes of existence, such as Einstein-Rosen bridges (though these are too unstable for this particular case). Therefore, it is possible that, every time somebody conjures something, they take matter from this parallel plane of existence, bring it to our own, and arrange it as necessary. They may not explain it as this, they may not even know that it is this, but it is still possible. Remember the adage; sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I think that this also applies to science: sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Young kids are amazed by the seemingly magical ability for an adult to open a garage door using a door opener. Muggles are the ignorant children, while wizards are the adults that amaze us with their "magic."

To explain the metaphor Taure quoted in the context of my above hypothesis, the parallel plane of existence is the metaphorical "nonbeing," as it is literally non-existent in our universe, but it is "everything" in that everything in our universe can be made from this nonbeing. Again, I know that this is a huge stretch, but I personally find it more believable than thinking that a wizard can release energy equivalent to 214 Tsar Bombas.

 

Not really. The wording of the quote is different to my paraphrase; the meaning the same.

I can "state well" Newton's laws. This does not mean my statement is metaphorical. Stating something well does not have anything to do with metaphor, but your descriptive capabilities.

Actually, taken literally it means that everything possesses non-being. Which you can take to be trivially true, really. Non-being has no location or physical presence, as it is non-being, and so can be everywhere, in everything. 1 + 0 = 1. (Or, more generally, X + 0 = X) Something plus nothing is identical to something, and something is identical to something plus nothing.

I don't see why you have to pick one or the other. The quote takes them to be compatible. Rather than saying "She's speaking metaphorically because this makes no sense with my understanding of the universe" rather say "It's magic".

I really hate that quote. More specifically, how it is misused. Sufficiently advanced technology is distinguishable from magic, because it runs by physical laws and has a rational mechanistic deterministic process behind it. Magic, by definition, does not.

What the quote actually means is this: From a position of ignorance, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

They're both huge stretches. You know what isn't? Accepting that it's magic.

 

I'll respond to Taure in a sec, but I'd like to reply to Portus (and others like him) first.

The thing is, I don't take this too seriously. I'm not going to click out of a fic just because their magic breaks the laws of physics (hell, BC;GE, one of my all time favorite fics, had Harry surviving a nuclear bomb), and in fact, I prefer it when magic just isn't explained. The mysteriousness of magic in HP is part of what draws me to it. The reason I'm in this debate is because of the people who say magic can't be explained by physics much more so than the ones who say it isn't explained by physics.

Still, Portus is right in that this should be let go, so I'll reply to Taure and be done with it. Let me just say that I don't particularly care if people don't believe that magic can be explained by physics, I'd just rather the notion not be ridiculed.

Now, on to Taure's reply.

A fair point, though I still find the phrasing somewhat odd.

This, however, I disagree with. In the English that I'm used to, "which is to say" is equivalent to... well, equivalent. Thus, the statement read "into non-being, which is equivalent to everything." But look around; everything is not in a state of non-being, but in a state of being. This contradiction can only be resolved by assuming McGonagall (the Professor of this particular field) is wrong, or that the statement is not literal. I've already explained my own interpretation.

That's what this whole argument is about, I believe.

But we are in a state of ignorance. We have, at the very best, a minimal knowledge of what magic is and how it works, so we can hardly say what it is and isn't.

That, to me, is what is beautiful about magic in Harry Potter - it's open to interpretation. I'm not saying that you're wrong, nor that I'm right. What I'm saying, and this is the beautiful thing, is that either of us can be right, and so we can choose to believe what we're most comfortable believing.

To you, that last isn't a big stretch, but it is to me.

Also, saying that it's just magic seem to me to be an out. "Oh I don't have to explain it, it's magic!" That just seems... lazy. This doesn't just apply to a physical interpretation of magic, but any interpretation, or rather lack thereof, that seems to occur in some fics.

 

Not that it needs to be stated after all that previous conversation, but trying to explain magic with physics-based reasoning is just not going to work in many/most cases. For another example, try explaining the influence of magic on electromagnetism.

We know that the concentrated magic at Hogwarts interferes with Muggle devices like radar, computers, and electricity, causing them to go "haywire." My opinion is that this is inadvertent, because I see no reason why wizards would intentionally interfere with those devices in Hogwarts. All of those devices are electromagnetic in nature.

I suck at physics, but I imagine that you'd need new calculus just to describe the effect of magic on the electromagnetic field, let alone the reason behind the effect. You'd probably end up with a new set of equations that describe the "magi-electromagnetic field," or some shit. The magic component of the field would be near-zero in most cases, and strongly present in places like Hogwarts, or as the result of a magical spell.

That's just one area of magic/physics interaction - it doesn't cover the effect of magic on momentum, gravity, matter, or other types of energy. That's why the physics explanations don't work - you're missing critical variables or formulae. It would be like trying do describe acceleration of an object down a hill, without knowing about the existence and effect of gravity.

 

Yes, exactly, that's what I'm trying to say. To use his example, you can't accurately describe acceleration toward a mass without knowing about gravity, but that doesn't mean that the mass doesn't cause an acceleration. Similarly, we may not be able to describe possible the possible physics of magic, but that does not mean that it can't be described physical laws, only that it can't be described by physical laws as we currently know them. But anyway, as I said, this shouldn't be taken so seriously.