The Science of Magic, Potter-Style

Cafe Society
1

I will concentrate my vast, powerful intellect and experience with magical systems and types of phenomena upon The works of J.K. Rowling’s magic.

The Nature of Magic

Magic in Rowling’s “England” (A strange and fey place teeming ith magical wildlife. Apparently a highly advanced world descended from a Victorian Steampunk Dimension.) apparently works totally in an offensive, active mode. The success of any spell depends primarily, if not totally, on the talent and skill of the caster. There are no passice countermeasures: the will or toughness of the target does not seem to be a mitigating factor. Some magical creatures do display an innate resistance to magic, which seems to be almost a function of their biology. Humans do not seemt capable of such feats in any way.

Other sources of magic may skew or twist a given spell or work of magic. However, this is essentially another form of active magic. The spell opposing the first is essentially attacking the original offensive spell.

Reference 1) No student has ever, in my data, resisted a skillfully cast spell, however simple, from another student. Like wise grown-up to grown-up.

Reference 2) “Avada Kedavra.” The spell of death. If cast correctly, there does not appear to be a method of evading the effects. Thus far, only one known human has survived it. This may have been a fluke due to conflicting and skewing magical effects.

Reference 3) Dragon’s hides are magically resistant. It takes several skilled wizards to stun one, though some implication is given that an accurate and bold wizard might successfully do so by striking vulnerable parts, such as the eye.

The Limits of Magic

Magical power appears very strong indeed. Though not, apparently, capable of destroying whole cities, as, in raw power terms, the entire energy output of all the wizards in the world may be less than a single modern nuclear warhead, it is capable of a wide variety of effects.

A single decently trained wizard of 12 years of age (after two years of schooling) can:

  1. Levitate objects, or move with sufficient force to injure/damage
  2. Perfom “basic” transmutation one object into a living creature
  3. Brew potions of unknown power, though they are of significant utility
  4. Care for a small number of magical creatures.

More advanced wizards have a great deal of personal power. Moreover, they can easily obtain many items of minr magic power, which essentially duplicate many modern scientific conveniences. Even young, untrained ones can accident;ly release their powre to create or destroy, however temporarily, matter and energy.

Most Wizards display no major difficulties in casting spells. They display to shortness of breath indicating a physical effort, nor any deteriation of physical form. Their mental faculties are not affected, unless the magic produced is dangerous somehow.

Most magic cannot be accomploshed without the use of a wand, but magical creatures operate differently. Since wands are crafted using the desmembered parts of such creatures, one mighty reasonably conclude that the bulk of the power is in the wand.

Even the highest mastery of magic is insufficient to create certain effects. Among them is ressurection. There are many other effects only available to the most dedicated or obsessive wizards, including instant self transformation (animagi) and immortaility. The latter must involve a huge deal of work, elsewise one would expect a great many immortal wizards.

Wizardly Genetics

This field is highly undeveloped, owing to the fact that wiards are, by and large, completed unsuited for advanced writing and technological skills, owing to their long absence of logical, scientifc thought.

In any event, the actual genetic basis of such power is unknown. Ordinary human pairings are quite capable of creating “wizards”. There does not seem to be any requirement for having any such magical members in the known past, beyond whioch any genetic basis is sketchy, at best, owing to long-term genetic dispertion. Long-time wizarding families likewise produce unmagical people. This does not have any importance in percieving and understanding magical phenomena.

The actual difference between Wizards and “Muggles” is less than clear. Though “wizards” do appear to have more innate magical power, certain wizarding injunctions do not appear to support the conclusion that all magic is genetically inherited. In particular, there is a rule against letting “Muggles” anywhere near an untended wand. In short, they must, according to the Ministry of Magic, be allowed to obtain such things. This would be a pointless law, unless Muggles could make some magical use of it. If the majority of the magic is actually in the wand, rather than the wizard, then the situation becomes much more logical.

2

Isn’t “explained magic” an oxymoron?

3

Wizardly Society

Modern Wizards appear to retain a persecution complex dating back to the witchhunts of Europe. (an irony, considering that accoridng to their own history, few wizards were slain, and that the witchhunts actually were logical, if not realistic, in hunting black magic) However,m they felt it neccessary to seperate themselves from “muggles”. The effects of this have resulted in the magical folk becoming completely seperate, unable to comprehend modern science, which has easily exceeded their magic in power and utility.

The seperaration of society may also have resulted in the formation of powerful “old families” of wizards, prided on their good breeding and powerful magic. These wield a disproportionate amount of power in British Wizard society, and may be the reason it has resisted democratization.

The discriminatory idea of “mudbloods” and “muggles” may contribute to this, as does the wizard’s constant struggle to avoid letting the non-magic users know about magical species.

Granted, it is likely they would be largely exterminated, due to the fact that most of them are insanely dangerous and are commonly aggressive in a fashion unbefitting their animal intellect.

4

Oh, don’t spare me my fun!

5

Hmmm… you know, I posted this in a jest and because I’m an arrogant street intellectual, but perhap the Mods might feel it is better off in MPSIMS. I though it was best served here, though.

6

You need to get out more.

:wink:

7

I thought this was a thread about the actual book
The Science of Harry Potter: How Magic Really Works.

8

But I have to say, with regards to Genetics, it seems fairly obvious that the talent to manipulate mana is a recessive gene that tends to manifest itself with the onset of puberty. This would explain both wizardly schools, and the tendency for Muggles and Wizards to interbreed and produce strong wizards, and for wizardly families to produce the occasional ‘Squib’.

As for the lack of counterspells during Wizardly duels, that is probably due to magickal practitioners retreating from the Western world at large before the development of scientific combat systems. It has been remarked that early pugilists were woefully inadequate at ducking, bobbing, weaving and blocking, and instead just stood there and took turns punching each other in the face.

Perhaps it’s considered unsportsmanlike to counter a magical blast?

9

By selling your soul to Satan, right? :wink:

10

On the other hand, my point applies not only to the duelling club, but to the general situation of staying alive when people throw big bolts of death at you.

11

I would say that dueling with wands is a bit like dueling with pistols: unless it’s a bean-bag in there, you don’t survive enough duels to become scientific about dodging, weaving, etc.

12

Not true. What’s the name of the control curse? That one can be resisted by sufficient willpower. Further, Harry actually does resist it, first partially against Mad-eye, and later totally against Voldemort. And Cruciatus will cause pain regardless, but a person’s reaction to that pain depends on the person.

13

I’m not sure that’s clearly the purpose of the wand. It seems to be that the wand exists to assist the wizard in focusing and directing his own innate magical power. I base this on the following canonical evidence:

  1. There are many occasions on which wizards effect magical spells without using wands. Professor McGonagall can transform herself in and out of animal form without use of a wand, and it’s made very clear that this is the use of a spell, distinct from the effects of lycanthropy. Harry himself inadvertently uses magical power without use of a wand, such as when he causes the glass enclosure to vanish at the zoo, allowing the Brazilian snake to escape.

  2. It seems to be clearly suggested that some wizards have substantially more innate magical power than others (Lord Voldemort) and that this power can be enhanced and improved through study and practice (Hermione.) There is never any indication in ANY of the books that some wands are more powerful than others. The process of selecting wands would suggest that wands can be differentiated by their suitability to the user, but it isn’t suggested some are inherently more powerful than others. Wizards never seem to want better, more expensive wands. Again, this would suggest the wand’s purpose is control and focus, not power.

  3. Although Rowling contradicts herself on this point, it is obvious that SOME Muggles must be aware of the world of magic - for instance, Hermione’s parents. It’s stated on more than a few occasions that Mr. and Mrs. Granger know their daughter is a wizard, and we know they buy her school supplies and send her off to Hogwarts. In one scene they are shown confused by the Byzantine process of converting British currency into wizard money. I mean, they must notice their daughter is gone from September to June. And of course the Dursleys know Harry is a wizard, and Petunia Dursley knew James and Lily Potter were wizards. Furthermore, Petunia and Lily’s parents (Harry’s maternal grandparents) knew, too. The secret is safe with the Dursleys because they’re too ashamed of it to tell anyone, but Hermione Granger’s parents seem to love their daughter and are happy to send her off to wizard school. It’s also stated that Hermione is not the only wizard with one or more Muggle parents, so there must be other wizards with Muggle parents who know what’s going on. And you’d have to assume Harry isn’t the only adopted wizard.

Even if the only Muggles allowed to know about the world of magic are those who must by necessity, such as Mr. and Mrs. Granger, you still can’t explain why they are incapable of using magic. Hermione does take her wand home during the summer, along with her textbooks and such. Yet we don’t see Muggles using magic, and clearly there IS an inherent difference between Hermione and her parents, because the Ministry of Magic asked her to attend Hogwarts but didn’t ask her parents.

(This, IMHO, is the one huge, gaping plot hole in Harry Potter.)

14

This, however, is the exception. The vast majority of spells eem to be irresistable.

True. However, in all fairness, we don’t know everything (an unfortuneate caveat that makes my whole effort virtually worthless, sigh). On top of this, we do have canon evidence that the ministry desperately wants to keep muggles from obtaining wands.

The difference may be minimal. An arbitrary level of “inate magic” may be what makes one “a wizard” or not. Which means that a muggle with a wand (enhancing his or her low mana use) might be well able to use magic, if not as effectively as most wizards.

15

Bravo post! A few points I would like to expand upon, debate, or otherwise mull:

The nature of magical talent merits further study. One hypothesis is that magical skill is not unlike muggle logic [Weasley et al, 2000]. Similar to programming a computer, successful magic requires both logic and training.
An interesting distinction, however, is that incorrect computer programming does not usually result in performance that are less coherent than intended. By contrast, magical errors frequently result in affects that are more dramatic than the intended spell [Dumbledore and Fleming, 1996]. Perhaps the whimsical edge to the logic of magic explains much of this difference - if you don’t get it right, the magic will have a laugh at your expense.

Magical talent, as distiguished from skill, appears to be a more artistic and less analytical knack, especially analagous to writing poetry. Ravenclaw’s hypothesis - that receptiveness to underlying and unexpected themes in nature is essential to magical practice - has not been refuted by any convincing study.

While this is indeed the consensus of most specialists in muggle studies, this author is not convinced. If it is possible for a single wizard to majick a car so that it can fly several hundred kilometers, the constructive (or destructive) capacity of all wizards and witches is entirely up for grabs. Unsettlingly, it is unknown whether you-know-who has any natural limits to his powers.

Granger et al [1998] have conjectured that the wand is more similar to an amplifier than a power source. Despite the difficulties in studying the relationships between wands and users, the Granger theory has gained some acceptance among American and Russian magic scholars.

Even the highest mastery of magic is insufficient to create certain effects. Among them is ressurection. There are many other effects only available to the most dedicated or obsessive wizards, including instant self transformation (animagi) and immortaility. The latter must involve a huge deal of work, elsewise one would expect a great many immortal wizards.

My doctoral dissertation is on a genetic model of inborn magical talent. My expectation is that there are several dominant genes for magical talent, which can be expressed in many different ways. I believe, however, that there is a crucial recessive gene, which must be inherited from both parents, to allow the other genes to express themselves as magical talent (and not merely, for example, a strange passion for peppermint ice cream).

It will be with some trepidation that I publish this study, as consumers with a poor understanding of genetics may infer that I am arguing for the superiority of pureblood wizards. My beliefs are quite the opposite - if a broader array of talents are brought into the wizard genepool, their magical powers would be greatly enhanced, and the nature of sorcery will be all the better understood.

I look forward to many more scholarly debates.

Sincerely,

Engywook
Graduate Student
Hogwarts School of Magical Medicine

16

Drat. Simulposted again… tis what happens when one writes bits and pieces in 2-minute snatches.
Did help make my day more interesting though.

17

Yeah, their society is based on muggle artifacts from around about the Middle Ages, swords, castles, fireplaces etc. They’ve got issues with using stuff produced more recently (On the whole, though I’m sure I remember a reference to plumbing and\or a boiler in the Weasley’s house), for no really obvious reason. (Well, there is that random thing about modern technology not working in highly magical areas, but there’s still loads of things that could be used, witness the flying car).

Could that just be because they’re mostly inherently magic (if not just weird) objects? As in phoenix feather cores and Veela hair, which would provoke a lot of interest, especially in something muggles could recognise as a classic magic wand.

18

I’d have to go with the wands as amplifier theory. Young wizards, as has already been noted, seem able to manifest some effects in times of stress without either a wand or even any magical training. Indeed, many wizarding families intentionally put their young ones in harm’s way in the hope of forcing them to manifest their magical heritage.

It seems that their are three components needed for an effective wizard[list=1]
[li]A magical amplifier, such as a wand. While wands are chosen for individual wizards, in a pinch, it seems any wand will do. As noted, untrained wizards seem to be able to do without. Perhaps this is a defense mechanism lost during puberty.[/li][li]Skill. [/li][li]Inherent ability. The experience of “Squibs” (people born to wizards, and thus raised in wizard society, but totally unable to work magic) indicates that some inherent power is needed to do any magic. Some magical skills, such as true precognition, and parselmouth seem unteachable and inborn.[/li][/list=1]

The danger of a muggle obtaining a wand is not in that the muggle would then be able to work magic, but that the muggle would then have material proof of the wizarding world. Also, it seems that convicted wizard criminals may be separated from their wands as part of their sentence, and therefore it makes sense that wands would be tightly regulated.

I disagree that spells are unblockable. The fact that it was been mentioned that their is no counter-curse to Avada Kedavra is the exception that proves most spells can be blocked or countered. Even that spell is not truly unblockable, as soon by young Mr. Potter. If spells are unblockable, then what is the piint of “defense against the dark arts”?

An interesting issue is that of magical technology (potions and other artifacts). Would they work for muggles? It seems so? If a muggle chemist were to find a potions textbook, and access to the proper components, could he then make, say, a polyjuice potion? I say no. I hypothesize that potions and other magical objects are simply spells cast into an inaminate object so that they can be activated (perhaps multiple times), by a person other than the caster.

More interesting to me than Muggles’ ignorance of the wizarding world (easily explained by a mixture of simple discretion and a liberal use of memory charms) is the wizard’s ignorance of Muggle technology and etiquette, despite regularly taking muggle spouses and muggle-born wizards into their society. I like the theory that the wizards broke from muggles during the middle ages, and have very rarely looked back, or needed to, as magic meets all their technological needs.

The self-imposed isolation of wizards is of great concern to me, as the concept of wizard supremacy is teh cornerstone of teh Death Eater movement. A fuller understanding and kinship to muggles is necessary to avoid the rise of a second He-Who-Must Not-Be-Named.

Mathieu Menocchio
Associate Professor of Charms
Salem School of the Magical Arts

19

Having looked at the science of the magical world, I am rather wondering about its cultural aspects.

We have been aquainted with wizarding schools in places other than Great Britain, for instance Romania and France.

In that case, are there magical schools all over the world? Does Yale have it’s own magical school, and if so, does its Quidditch team have cheerleaders? Or do American wizards play a bizarre form of the sport involving an oval shapped snitch and lots of padding and helmets?

Is there poverty in the wizarding world? If the wizard population can be found worldwide, do the wizards in places such as Somalia or Ethiopia suffer similarly to the muggles who live in those areas, or are they a wellfed, wealthy upperclass in a land of starvation?

Is magic different around the world? Do some wizarding schools base greater significance on things like Voodoo or Witchdoctory? Or does the Hogwarts curriculum represent magical learning worldwide?

Are any magical people inadvertantly well known in our world? Could Brad Pitt, for instance be a wizard (obviously one of muggle parents, otherwise he’d have the incomprehension of the muggle world that the Weasleys exhibit.)

20

From smiling bandit:

May I have a cite for this? While I consider myself as expert in canonical detail as any, I am chagrined to have no recollection of this one. I DO recall that magical non-humans (e.g., house elves, and presumably goblins and trolls, although not, it appears, giant/human hybrids) are prohibited from possessing magic wands.

As to the issue genetics: It seems that there is a more complpex mechanism at work here than a simple dominant/recessive duality. It appears that offspring of witch/wizard-Muggle pairings are predominantly magical (although I make that assertion without a shred of canonical evidence). This would tend to suggest that the magic-use gene is dominant. Why, then do not more witches and wizards spontaneously arise from Muggle families? I would like to posit a second gene, this one recessive, but also so widespread as to be nearly universal. This second gene would assert itself in all subjects who carry two copies of it, which would be nearly everybody (more on this later). In my hypothesis, the gene for magic use is utterly incapacitated by some hormone that accompanies the onset of puberty. The second, recessive gene enables this hormone to operate in this way only when it occurs twice. If the gene occurs only once, the operation of the hormone on the magic-use gene is suppressed.

In most populations of Muggles, the second, recessive gene pair expresses predominantly, and the domminant magic-use gene is usually incapacitated. However, in a few rare instances, a Muggle will appear without a second copy of the gene. If that Muggle is also carrying the (more common that is generally understood) dominant magic-use gene, the subject will be a witch or wizard. In the more genetically isolated population of the magical community, the magic-suppression gene is less likely to appear even once. But when it appears twice in a single subject, the result is a Squib.

Clearly, further study is necessary.