(TFT) Magic and Physics (was: Re: TFT Digest V3 #1159)

[Mark Tapley <mtapley@swri.edu>]

At 17:39 -0400 4/8/09, Richard wrote:
> 1. Magic "works".  Work is a measurement found within physics and is 
> based on the metaphysicial system of the moment.  We don't have any 
> evidence that magic performs work.  In fact, it seems to defy the 
> laws of physics.

I accidentally used a word with a loaded connotation - "work". I 
meant to say, magic is effective, operates successfully; not "does 
work" in the sense of "force acting through distance".

I certainly agree that the energy (and work) balance for a lot of 
spells cannot be successfully derived using thermodynamics, so it's 
very likely that thermodynamics cannot describe magic. However there 
are quantum phenomena, like zero-point energy, that look to my 
somewhat uneducated eye like they could be made to provide plenty of 
energy for the spells *if* the energy-releasing reactions could be 
made to happen far more often (or less often) than they statistically 
do under normal conditions.

Heck, many of the elements we are made of have half-lives. If I could 
cause all of the Carbon-14 in my body to decay right *now* instead of 
waiting for a 5000-year half-life, I bet I'd have *plenty* of energy 
for a fireball spell. They don't do that under normal conditions. If 
magic makes them do that, it could be seen to have tapped into a 
source of energy that is not in the normal, thermodynamic energy 
balance.

> 2. Magic is makes the improbable happen.  Again, this presupposes 
> that we know what is probable by founding probability on our current 
> laws of physics and mathematics.

Yup. See above; Carbon-14 decays with a *very* predictable half-life. 
But the atoms are independent systems; there's nothing keeping them 
from all going off at once. The fact that Carbon-14 dating works 
(well) shows that we do, in fact, know what is "probable" under 
normal physics and thermodynamics, and we make use of that knowledge 
all the time. (Depends a little bit on what you mean by "probable", 
but I feel pretty comfortable saying that a half-life description 
that has worked in *every* experiment for the past couple of 
centuries is highly "probable" to work next time as well.)

> 3. Energy is conserved according to the law of conservation of 
> energy when magic is used to do anything, such as freeze water. 
> But, magic might in fact not conform to this law.

Definitely true! But, if physics (including quantum physics) and 
magic are going to be consistent, I think at some level energy 
conservation (within quantum limitations) has to kick in. But I think 
quantum physics allows enough latitude for most "magic" effects to 
take place - *if* the normal statistical limits on how large 
ensembles of atoms (etc.) react can be somehow waived. I think 
thermodynamics, because it is based on the idea that the statistics 
of large ensembles are inviolable, will not allow "magic" effects to 
take place, but then I also think quantum physics violates 
thermodynamics at the molecular level, so I'm OK with that.

> 6. Imbue with Magic:  Magic item creation appears to somehow 
> instantiate an object with magic and properties of that magic 
> permanetly.  Some magic items even somehow power themselves.  This 
> strength-battery concept isn't explained.  Maybe the magical energy 
> comes from somewhere and is collected, or maybe grows organically, 
> or maybe it is replenished by other means.  In any event, it seems 
> that magic can be put into a physicial form and bound to an object.

Well, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringent

or, for that matter,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)

And, you know those speed-limit signs on some neighborhoods? Solar 
array on top, battery inside, radar speed detector, LED readout 
showing you your speed and turning red if you are above the speed 
limit? Is that "magic"? Where does the energy for that come from? (I 
know, we both happen to know that answer.)

I think Clarke's third law of prediction applies here: Any 
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

Anyway, the point of this is to try to work out a path by which Jay 
can (theoretically, anyway, if not practically) write a "Rulebook of 
Magic" consistent with his "Rulebook of physics". But as I said 
before, I don't know how sanguine I am about the result being 
playable. At the least, it looks like every wizard player will also 
have to be a good quantum-physics practitioner.

At 17:39 -0400 4/8/09, DMG2 wrote:
> So, Jay, using these two books one makes Melee, Wizard, and Labris. 
> So using the books of "Astrology tax" and "Death prediction" one 
> writes the book of Worldly, and the book of Wize, and the book of 
> Labors.  So, in conclusion, not one book (that is a magic item 
> within the game) two books, used to write each of the published 3. 
> The last three books are the tangibles that should "be in the room" 
> for players to "point to."

For some reason, I keep seeing the word "Meta-Gaming" floating before 
my eyes as I read this paragraph.

;-)
--
						- Mark     210-379-4635
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Asteroids headed toward planets
inhabited by beings that don't have
technology adequate to stop them:

				Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"