What is Magic?

[digitopolis_2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 42462


I read once that Science is based on two assumptions:
1. That there is order and logic in the Universe
2. That effect comes after cause.

Even though, as someone suggested, the WW might make no logical sense 
whatsoever, I think that there is order to it because
1. It is located in this Universe which (supposedly) has order
2. (to a lesser extent) The fact that the information can be 
organised in such a manner as to be taught and that research takes 
place (i.e. Charlie and the Dragons)
(The idea of effect and cause is a little fuzzy with the time turner, 
and certain `arrows of time' so I'll avoid it, because everyone will 
become confused, including myself.)

Now it is very doubtful that JKR will have someone go off on a spiel 
about what magic is, since, in Potterverse, magic simply *is*. In 
other words, we may never truly know. However, based on what canon I 
can remember at the moment, here are my thoughts on Magic. 

Warning: There are lots of science bits in this; I hope I don't go 
off the deep end.

I like to think that magic is woven into the fabric of space-time. 
Oftentimes, I think this too about good and evil (on other days, the 
idea is balderdash). In ancient times, people believed that the world 
was made up of elements: fire, wind, water, earth (eventually `ether' 
(space) joined this group). I'd like to add magic to this list.

These are conceptual elements, unlike the physical elements of the 
Periodic Table that we use. Magic isn't physical – it's not made up 
of atoms – which leads me to believe that magic might be some sort of 
radiation.

What we have is the electromagnetic spectrum, including light, 
infrared, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays etc. 
which are of different wavelengths. However, I have reason to believe 
that magic simply isn't an extension of the EM spectrum:
1. Muggles can't detect it using any instrument. Detection would rely 
on interaction between the radiation and something else, but that 
doesn't happen for muggles. 
2. Magic interferes with electronic equipment which uses/gives off 
radiation in the EM spectrum.

Now we have three ideas: (don't want to call them options, as they 
might be interrelated.)
1. There is another spectrum parallel to the EM spectrum that deals 
with magic. 
2. Magic is a fundamental force or the manipulation of the 
fundamental forces. There are four – weak nuclear, strong nuclear, 
gravitational and electromagnetic. 
3. Two words: Quantum physics.

People talk about the `magical-ness' of places/people, for example 
Hogsmeade is a totally magical village. Pictures of Earth from space 
show bright spots of light coming from large cities during the night. 
This is how I `see' the magic of a place – as radiating from it. 

Magic interacts with waves in the EM spectrum, for example the 
invisibility cloak. Light waves seem to pass straight through – like 
glass. And like glass, the person/thing under the cloak remains 
solid. However transparency is a property inherent in glass due to 
crystal structure, I believe. I don't think that the cloak can give 
properties like that, so it must mean that it somehow interacts with 
the light rays, bending them in some manner so that it appears that 
we can see straight through.

This bending of light reminds me so much of space, where large bodies 
warp space-time due to gravity. This was Einstein's idea and was 
proven during an eclipse when a star that was supposed to be behind 
the sun, was seen next to it. The light from the star (radiation) 
travels a straight path, but when the path is bent, the path of the 
light is curved, and the position of the star appears changed. 

The reason I bring this up is that this relates to one of the 
fundamental forces – gravity. Therefore, we could assume that magic 
is the manipulation of the forces. By influencing the forces we can 
control matter – it's possible then that this is the underlying 
principle of magic. 

And now we move on to Quantum Physics (which I don't know much 
about/can't understand very well). In the Lexicon FAQ I came across 
this (which I shall quote here since I don't think I can explain it 
any better), which got me started on the idea of quantum physics at 
work. It's about the Time Turner:

"In the scene where Harry and Hermione use the time-turner to rescue 
Buckbeak why didn't they replay the scene as many times as they 
needed to get it right?  At first, this thought seems a reasonable 
question, but there are two factors that count against such an 
action.  Firstly, there would be high chance that the pair would 
encounter an earlier Harry and Hermione, and, secondly, they would 
not be able to make further attempts if they had observed any sort of 
outcome. 

"To expand on the second of these points, the theory goes that, using 
the time-turner, people can only change the course of time if the 
outcome is uncertain or, "exists in a state of `Quantum Ambiguity' 
where it can go one way or the other".  The rescue of Buckbeak was 
possible only because Harry and Hermione had not witnessed his death; 
they heard the axe fall, but they did not see him beheaded.  Once 
they had rescued him, the ambiguity of the situation was resolved. 

"Applying this explanation to two other situations, when Hermione 
used the time-turner to squeeze in all those extra classes, she fell 
asleep and missed a Charms class, but the minute she was woken, the 
ambiguous state in her mind was resolved and the option of returning 
to take the class was lost.  Another situation was when Harry 
witnessed himself creating the Patronus by the lake.  In this case, 
Harry was only potentially on the other side of the lake and this 
ambiguity was resolved when he voluntarily saved his own life. 

"Could this be related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which 
holds that one cannot measure both the momentum and location of an 
electron with any accuracy at the same time?  In other words, if an 
action (momentum) is resolved in one place (location), it becomes 
impossible to return to that place to achieve an alternative outcome. 

"In relation to, PoA there are many subtle clues to events caused by 
the time-turner.  For example, when Harry, Ron and Hermione enter the 
entrance hall under the Invisibility Cloak, they hear departing 
footsteps and a door slamming and proceed to Hagrid's hut to comfort 
him over the death of Buckbeak.  Later, after using the time-turner, 
Harry and Hermione appear in the entrance hall and hide in a broom 
cupboard, where Hermione hears herself, Ron and Harry outside, under 
the cloak, on 
their way to Hagrid's."

Currently, lots of physicists are experimenting with quantum effects 
(for lack of the real term). They say that they've managed to bring 
particles to an `entangled' state. Extrapolating, they say that it 
could be key to creating teleportation devices (a la Star Trek). 
Apparation immediately come to mind – disappear from one place, 
reappear almost instantly in another. This is basically what happens 
in Star Trek, basically what the scientists say they may eventually 
be able to do years from now – and wizards do it all the time!

Whew! Enough of this theoretical stuff for now. We can't only 
consider magic as an independent entity. After all, magic is 
significant because beings exist which can use it – specifically 
humans.

Non-magic and magic people are/seem exactly alike – except for the 
obvious. Current thinking (what I've read so far) is that magical 
ability is due to genetic inheritance. This is plausible given that 
it seems magic runs in families (old wizarding families)

The gene for magical ability has to be recessive; otherwise everyone 
would have the ability. Magic folk had to marry Muggles to keep from 
dying out. However, according to the rules of genetics their kids 
would have no magical ability whatsoever. 

If their kids had no magic in them, then to really keep the wizarding 
line going, the kids would have to marry other kids like themselves 
and hope their child has magic, or marry a true wizard. Both 
Hermione's parents would have to have the gene, and by luck of the 
draw, Hermione's got both copies. There is the possibility the gene 
is sex-linked, but I wont get into that today.

Another factor must be at work, undermining or overriding the rules 
of genetics. I think I remember reading at the Lexicon that there are 
a certain number of magical people, and when one died, his magic went 
to another who was being born. I don't support this because: why 
would the wizards think they were going to die out? Someone, maybe 
from the population statistics section of the ministry, would have 
noticed.

Another question is whether magic folk have magic in them, or, due to 
proteins produced by the genes, are somehow able to manipulate the 
magic around them. If there is a gene for magical *ability* I can't 
see how this relates to *being* magical – a centaur, goblin etc. (How 
can they use magic anyway? Genes? I think not)

Magic folk also have the ability to enchant mundane things – Tom 
Riddle's diary for instance. In fact, most magical devices (in a list 
found at the Lexicon) seem to be enchanted objects – the magic was 
introduced into them. There doesn't seem to be anything 
naturally "magical" except for living beings. 

Oh dear, I seemed to have run out of steam. Perhaps I'll continue 
some other time. 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,

Valerie Parker