Ah, the infamous magical gene explanation. One of the main issues I have with it is the idea that Wizards are physiologically muggles. Except they have magic and chances are their immune systems are more efficient. I would posit that the existence of the magic gene allows for the developement of my above stated Energy Gathering System, which is wholly a magical construct.

The level of which the gene (actually, there are probably several genes, unless you ascribe to stargate's explanomarathonation) is active probably determines, at least initially, the efficiency of your energy gathering system and the size of your initial reserve.

Canon, for the whole difference between wizards and muggles and casting, let's use the blind guy analogy.

Joe Muggle was born without key sections to his optic nerve. He has never been able to see, and cannot comprehend what it means to do so. Instead, he perceives the world through other senses, and gets around okay.

Then we have Jane Wizard. Jane has been born with a complete optic nerve. All she has to do is open her eyelids and move her eyes around. Yet when Joe Muggle performs the exact same action, he's still unable to see.

The reason of course being that he lacks something fundamental to the action of seeing, being the Optic Nerve. Jane doesn't.

 

Multiple genes would make more sense, since that way magical genetics actually works by the laws of genetics we all know and love, but JKR has said that there's just the one gene. Which also means that the genetics of the magic gene follow a set of rules different to the genetics that we Muggles know of.

Canon evidence? Or, since magic is never talked about in canon in this detail, partial canon evidence that implies a system such as this? Or if not that, proof that this is the kind of way in which JKR thinks?

 

There isn't much canon evidence, and nothing I can think of at the specific moment. Rather it is a theory. I do not submit it as fact any more then I believe your 'anti-reality' is fact. We work with what we have, and though I am particularly adept at forming theories and coming up with hypothesese, I am not the sort who has all the books on hand and is ready to provide line by line chapter and page number evidence. I only put forth the information. The rest of you can argue yourselves blue about it. That's just the way my head works, sorry.

In any case, I merely put it forward as something that /could/ explain the reason why things are the way they are. Magic is never described in such a detail in canon as you yourself have mentioned, and I don't follow JKR's own words on the subject feverently, so all I have is knowledge gleaned, interpreted, proccessed, and reproccesed from my time reading the books. Though I have made sure to never confuse what I've read with fanfiction, and tried to come up with my own explanation.

All told, the it is eminently possible that magic just comes from nothing, thermodynamics is a lie, and you're just a figment of my imagination. But I prefer to beleive it follows a sort of logic, twisted or not. And this explanation makes the most sense given the assorted theories and feats we've seen performed. I can't do any better then have it make sense.


EDIT: JKR has said there's only one gene? fine, so there's one specific gene that allows for magical growth and development. But I would posit, while the so called 'source' is only one gene, that gene being active in turn allows all sorts of genes hidden in the so called 'junk' portions of our DNA to in turn become active, and it is these genes that allow for the wild variations in both magical ability and other traits (metamorphagus, and the like). This would make sense with what we know of genetics AND JKR's canon mention of "one gene to rule them all"

 

I've never really defended my anti-reality idea, so here's the argument behind it:

1. Many, if not all, spells that we have seen break the rules of known physics - conservation of energy, the idea that nothing cannot come out of something, gravity, electromagnetic forces, and so on.

There are two explanations for this:

2. Our knowledge of physics is simply deficient, and magic is perfectly explainable in terms of physics that we are as of yet unaware of. In essence, magic is part of nature, just like gravity and other concepts such at this.

3. Magic is by it's very nature something that breaks the rules of nature - anti-reality. In essence, magic is separate from nature, and obeys a completely different set of rules.

The first option (2) is unlikely, considering JKR has said that magic is at its deepest level unscientific:

In addition, we can see the unscientific nature of spells from canon. Spells do not appear to follow a set formula. They're flexible and "intelligent" (not sentient). It would be a mistake, for example, to think of a shield spell as something that lets X things through and blocks Y things.

Instead, it should be thought of as a spell that acts as a barrier, and what it bars is flexible, depending on the intent and desire of the caster. We've seen it block spells and sometimes physical objects. But not all physical objects, since air and light and so forth still gets through - just the physical objects that the caster's intent covers. (Not that this does not have to be a conscious intent - it can be a subconscious desire too.) We've seen it be applied as a barrier protecting the caster, but we've also seen it being applied as a barrier separating two other people.

So, since 2 is not an option, it must be 3.

 

Skill = power
Skill = "non-magical factors (intelligence etc).

Therefore, Power = "non-magical factors (intelligence etc)

We're back to Mozart and Nature vs. Nurture. Some wizards are born with "non-magical factors (intelligence etc)" that make them more powerful wizards than others. And while magic is dispensed within the human population with an "on/off" switch, there's also some sort of dimmer switch involved.

 

Not really. They're completely different issues.

Okay, think of it like this, using the piano analogy:

Everyone with hands can play the piano. How well these people play the piano depends on their skill, which will be determined by a range of environmental and genetic factors.

People without any hands at all cannot play the piano. It's like an on/off switch.

The magic gene is like having hands, and having no hands is like being a Squib/Muggle. Everyone who have hands are wizards, and how well they play is how well they cast their magic.

The issue of hands and the issue of skill - though genetics both take part in both - are completely separate. Those things that determine intelligence etc. are separate from the gene that determines magic.

 

The problem I have with that is that you're ascribing the so called shield spell to be entirely linear and simple. Block X things while Y is true, and so on. Rather I would say that it is subject to being immensely complicated as an arithematic formulae. This would allow for your intent and desire of the caster. Personally, I refuse to believe that magic is so simple as to have a formula "X do this, while Z is this" to ever be true. It would rather count on myriad things, which would actually allow your number 2 to be, well, true.

furthermore, I would add that that, as per JKR's direct quote, that she is talking about "The very deepest life and death issues" and not "generic spellcasting". With such issues one has moved beyond simple formulae, and into the realm of the truly magical. Why do dementors suck out souls, and furthermore how? I doubt it is truly just a matter of scientific fomulae. That said, it could be, but it would require a highly advanced formula. Though the end result would basically be "When these condition are met, the dementor will suck out your soul" I refuse to believe it is ONLY that. This /is/ magic, and those I will try to explain it, it remains more then just physical evidence. Just as I believe humans are more the meat machines.


Furthermore, JKR has not said "magic at its deepest level is unscientific" but rather "It is important to state that I always /saw/ these kinds of magic" This means that this is her own opinion, and not pure canon fact, and she has been careful to distinguish between the two. I am not saying what she believes is untrue, but I do not accept it to mean "there can be NO scientific explanation"




Of course, the other issue we have, especially with you talking about how magic breaks physics is this.


Magic breaks physics. But at the same time, it follows physics. Or rather, this is what I believe. I would say that magic allows for the manipulation of physics in a way we mortal normal mundane humans are unable to. However, one should not consider magic a 'cheat code to the universe' becuase it evidently still follows certain laws.

Where I'm going with this amounts to the this. the things wizards do would, to our mundane conventional sciences, take energy of an untold of level. To stretch and bend spacetime like wizards do would, to a conventional muggle science, just be entirely out of bounds that it (pun) might as well be magic.

Being light like an invisibility cloak? Well, okay, so we can do that now as our understanding advances. But making something large on the outside then on the inside? That would take energy more then our sun puts out at any given moment. And since wizards don't explode in a massive teraton cloud of expanding spacetime whenever they die, we can assume that for all their power, they don't use the massive amount of energy it would take for a muggle contraption to do the same thing, even if it has the same results.


Liken it to transport. On the one hand, you can walk around the world. On the other, you can build a care or a plane and drive or fly. The latter does take more energy then walking, but it is comparatively faster and more efficient in assorted ways. With wizards, whatever they do to manipulate reality has been refined to a high level so that they needn't brute force the solution, they can rely on much subtler influences.

And this ties in to why I think you (Taure) have neglected the idea of magical power. Because truly, to brute forcely do what wizards do would take a phenomenal amount of energy. And wizards as slightly better then mortal humans couldn't possibly contain such energy. So they must do it through some sort of refined method.

Hell, if we take wands as a recent invention, and the idea that the ancient wizarding societies, like the egyptians were into heavy rituals to pull of their stuff, we can then go "hey, it's like evolution man."

But I'm getting off topic.

 

You raise some interesting points, but I still back magic being unscientific. Stuff like spelled cars suddenly becoming sentient and gaining life all seems to me to point at magic as more than just a set of laws and rules.

Though I must say it is tempting to say that magic is energy, and thus saying that each wizard must have produce more energy than a star to be able to do the things they do.

If magic is scientific, then it is so in the same way as Quantum physics - completely random.

 

"There is only power and those too weak to seek it"

He said, "weak," NOT undisciplined, lazy, or stupid. Or too busy playing Quidditch to concentrate on studying. To be fair, VoldeQuirrell might well be referring to the rituals he undertook to gain immortality, but the sentence doesn't imply that.

Is there any canon evidence that Riddle might have used any artificial methods of boosting his power? Spells, potions, rituals, human sacrifice?

I suspect that power-boosting potions don't exist - otherwise they'd be in common use. If the limiting factor is that they use rare/expensive components, then rich people would be more powerful spell casters. If they were available but use Dark/Black components, all the Dark families would already rule the world. If they were obscure (or deliberately hidden,) the old families would have the recipes in family records. No one with any ambition for his family would let THAT information die.

To a lesser extent, the same goes for rituals. It's possible that power-boosting rituals need a high level of self-control, a highly developed skill at concentration, or pain management. Riddle stumbled upon the side-benefits of multiple horcruxes - but after already having split his soul At Least twice, I wouldn't trust his assessment of his abilities.

If Dumbledore was too Light to contemplate using them on Harry, I'm SURE that Moody and Snape wouldn't hesitate. They might not even bother asking, first.

 

no, no, no, I'm not saying wizards have to outproduce a star to do what they do. I'm saying that muggles would have to outproduce a star to do what wizards do. Wizards, obviously, being of more advanced in their manipulations of reality require far, far less energy to do what they do. And too, I am not saying that magic, the act of casting a spell is energy itself, but rather that it requires energy. The end result is, by and large, energy, at least until it hits whatever it's target is (if it has one) at which point it does something else. But because we've seen travel time for certain cast spells, I would posit that those are energy while they're flying about. Once they enact on something, then they can change.

Indeed, even spells like Augementi would exist as energy as they traverse the wand, and convert to water through some higher level, (arcane?) process to produce the jet of water.

Actually, your mention of quantum physics brings me back to an arguement I had over on SB somewhat recently which might account for how wizards do a lot of what they do. Namely, spells are a means for controlling the collapse of the probability waveform, allowing it to produce results that are, well, magic. And if Wizards have an inherent SuperObserver status over muggles, then they would be able to produce these effects without outproducing a star as far as energy goes.



And even quantum physics isn't completely random, not really. It just seems to ignore some of the lesser laws, and be greater then the sum of its parts, or whatnot. Still, I'm glad to have raised some interesting points.

But as I said before, obviously it isn't /all/ scientific. There's still random chance and assorted other factors that mechanical science alone cannot account for.


So we'll agree to disagree on that specific subject. Still, I'm glad to have dealt with this argument properly without myself devolving into a frothing rabid meat machine. Well, more then once anyways.

Alternatively, we could come to a compromise. The idea that magic is both scientific and beyond. Just like humans are. We can use science to explain everything away, but it doesn't account for everything. Consciousness is more then the sum of its parts, and identity is more then just memory. I agree wholeheartedly, I do indeed concur* that magic cannot be /only/ explained by science. However that fact does not, in my eyes, discount it from being explained according to science /at all/.

And really, explaining everything according to science, really takes the magic away. I'd rather explain what it does according to science and account for the fact that there are things we can't explain yet. And really, by the time we can explain them we won't be this sort of human any more, so it won't be as much of an issue, ne?

EDIT: Banner: Riddle is insane. And as for 'undisciplined lazy and stupid', well, those are what we call mental or physical weaknesses, ne?

As for power boosting potions, they do exist. Just not in the manner you've posited. Book Six, the Luck Potion.

I would put forth, as Slughorn mentions, that the reason such things are not in widespread continual use is that there ARE sideeffects. And said side effects would result in the fact that while you might use said potion once, you're not going to be on it twenty four seven unless you're a junkie like Guant.

 

Voldemort was obviously talking about power of WILL there, not physical power... He meant 'The is only power and those without the will to seek it' not 'There is only power and those without enough magical power to seek it.'

Also, the idea of having 'power-boosting' rituals implies having an amount of energy within one's self to boost. As Kerrus has made obvious, it is literally impossible for enough energy to do most spells to rest inside the body. We disagree on what that implies (I agree with Taure mostly), but the base fact that there is NO 'magical core' I think we all agree on.

 

Exactly. Because spells bend and appear to break all manner of physical laws, there's no way the energy to do so (through brute force, anyways) exists within the bodies of wizards, and I refuse to believe it exists as some sort of magical plane.

As I've said in my theory, I believe that wizards use a... a more refined method to do what they do. Like comparing a gun (modern wizard) to a giant log (Muggle). The wizard can aim and shoot for comparatively little power and kill someone. The muggle doesn't even have the strength to lift the log, much less bludgeon someone to death with it. Even several muggles working together would only be able to lift the log. Swinging it around would take a phenomenal amount of power.

So too with regards to what wizards do, and what muggles would have to do to achieve those same outcomes.

So really, the idea that wizards contain a portable black hole for power generation somehwere in their bodies is a bit weird and outlandish. I'd rather just believe they produce the energy that they use to manipulate reality from the same thing we mundanes produce the energy we need to get up and walk around from.

Now that's not to say that they can't be affected by ambient so called magical power, indeed it does seem that the positions of celestial objects are very important to them, along with numbers and the like, and no doubt affect things like rituals.




Now that all said, I wouldn't mind seeing a parody fic where wizards accomplish what they do through brute force, and someone, say Malfoy perhaps, finds a way to just let that force out. He goes, challenges Harry to a duel, and then blows up the planet when he tries his new curse out.

Or something like that.


EDIT: That all said, the whole idea of a magical core shows up an astounding amount in HP fanfiction, which is, at times, annoying. "You've stressed your magical core, you can't cast spells for a week" right.... That's like saying "You've stressed your lungs breathing, you aren't allowed to breath for a week"

 

I think this was the only part of Taure's theories I had difficulty accepting. I'm not sure what exactly it is that you're supposed to be 'familiar' with if your wand motions and incantation is perfect?
I always imagined spell casting as similar to something like a tennis serve. Something that requires an understanding of the theory, mechanics and effect but also a great deal of natural dexterity. Most importantly however, it requires a great deal of practice to put all of these ideas together. The reason Dumbledore and Voldemort are both such potent tennis players is because they have both the intelligence to understand the theory and the natural dexterity and practice to accomplish legendary feats. Hermione is a mediocre tennis player because whilst she understands the theory and practices hard, she's never going to be dexterous enough to direct the ball exactly how she wants it. Muggles in comparison have no hands.

 

Moody/Crouch said something to the effect that everyone in the fourth-year DADA class could cast Avada Kedava at him, but he probably wouldn't get anything worse than a headache. So it sounds as if AK doesn't have a "degree of mastery." Either you cast it successfully, and kill someone, or you fail. Period.
Does the AK work on animals? Have we ever seen it cast on a non-human creature? I've always assumed that it simply flatlines all brain activity - killing instantly. So... it would work on any creature with a higher nervous system; house-elf, centaur, dog. I remember that some breeds of dinosaurs had two "brains." Would AK only kill one of the central nerve cluster? What if someone jumped in front of an AK, but only partially occluded it? Suppose a mother tried to protect her child, but wasn't QUITE fast enough to do the job right. So, her outstretched arm blocked most of the AK, but the rest got through. Would they both die? Would her arm be permanently numbed (like with a spinal injury,) ot would it "die" and start to decay? Would her child drop dead, or take permanent brain damage?

 

Yeah, in the "Spinner's End" Bellatrix killed a fox with AK.

 

How would it affect something that didn't have a brain - like a tree? Or an elemental? A cockroach can live a week with its head cut off before it starves to death. If it doesn't Actually Use its brain, would the AK kill it?

As for magic cores;
Up until Book6, we thought Harry was supposed to be a, you know, hero - smart, tough, powerful, athletic, honorable. The only thing he seems to have going for him is the "athletic" part. So those of us who were Harry fans were trying to figure out what made him special. Harry has truly Brilliant hand-eye coordination. That appears to be it. He's of average intelligence, has well below average emotional discipline, completely lacks any enthusiasm for intellectual achievements. A Really Powerful magical core would compensate for a short spell list, indifferent spell skills, minimal self-control, and the inability to work in a team.

 

You are assuming that the AK attacks the brain, there is no evidence to support this at all. The books hint at a much darker effect than that. It also depends somewhat where you define the line between 'living' and 'alive'.