PDA

View Full Version : Magic and Physics



Pages : [1] 2

Aximili
2007-01-18, 09:04 PM
I opened this thread mostly for the poll.
I've seen many (too many, in my opinion) people say that magic goes against any notion of physics and you absolutely cannot use physics to explain magic, answer any question about magic, nor make any assumption about a doubt left by the description of a pell.

Do you think there can be an agreement between Spells and Physics?
(Hope I've been specific enough).

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-18, 09:08 PM
Of course not. If magic could work with physics, we'd have magic.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-18, 09:09 PM
Sure, why not? Just make magic a different form of energy that mages can somehow convert to other forms of energy. It will be really, really complicated, though.

Also, magic can't exceed the speed of light. That gets into too many causality issues.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 09:11 PM
Magic doesn't work within the laws of physics, that's the point. To do something not normally possible by any natural laws. Bears is right, if it worked within the laws of physics, we'd have magic.

Aximili
2007-01-18, 09:17 PM
Sure, why not? Just make magic a different form of energy that mages can somehow convert to other forms of energy. It will be really, really complicated, though.

Also, magic can't exceed the speed of light. That gets into too many causality issues.
This is exactly what I mean. Teleport is extremely fast, but it doesn't exceed light-speed. That still allows you to go anywhere in the world in the same round you cast it.

Like-wise, a fireball spell would consume from the elemental plane of fire the same amount of energy that it produces with the explosion.

If you decrease the size of a boulder, make it roll, and then dissipate the spell, it would actually slow down as it increases in size.

TheDarkOne
2007-01-18, 09:25 PM
There's really no point. At some level of "Well how does that part of the spell work with physics" you have to say "Because it's magic"(Alternately, "A wizard did it"). You're just creating more long winded explanations.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 09:27 PM
Magic doesn't work within the laws of physics, that's the point. To do something not normally possible by any natural laws. Bears is right, if it worked within the laws of physics, we'd have magic.

Actually, I would say "If magic worked within the laws of physics, it would be physics, not magic."

And hark! I hear catgirls dying.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-01-18, 09:29 PM
I'd rather have my magic suspending the normal laws of physics, if they even apply (D&D seems to obey Aristotelean physics more than Newtonian, anyway).

Besides, Plane Shift lets you go to places that don't hold any correspondence to where you are; there is no way to reach other planes at any speed, nor can you specifically give a range from a corresponding point for Plane Shift, therefore Plane Shift violates the lightspeed limit.

mooseofshadows
2007-01-18, 09:32 PM
You could definately go into quantum physics to justify plane shift, but I don't think that anyone wants to do that.

Except me. I do love me some quantum.

Dumbledore lives
2007-01-18, 09:33 PM
Planeship dosn't over exceed lightspeed. In our world there are no other planes but in the D and D universe maybe you can get to other planes of existence where here there are barriers.

Raum
2007-01-18, 09:35 PM
Personally, I don't want to RP some version of real life, nor do I want to worry overmuch about physics while gaming. I like the "magic" in fantasy.

What I do prefer to see is verisimilitude. The system, whatever it may be, should be internally consistent.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-01-18, 09:38 PM
Ah, but Plane Shift goes to any point on another plane.

So, assume you have points A and B four light-years apart on Plane 1, a Point C on Plane 2.

Plane Shift from Point A to near Point C, then from Point C to near Point B takes two rounds, or a day, tops, not four years, whether you're talking percieved time or standard, semi-objective time (of course, since time remains constant regardless of which plane of existence you're on, even if it doesn't work entirely the same way, that encourages an idea of Multiversal Objective Time, also compromizing Relativity, but not Aristotelean physics).

Gate can likewise circumvent similar limitations.

Aximili
2007-01-18, 09:42 PM
(D&D seems to obey Aristotelean physics more than Newtonian, anyway).Really? What makes you say that?

Anyway, I guess I'm outnumbered here. At least I gave it a try :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:I would classify planeshift under the spells that physics cannot explain, since we have no idea how would travel between universes actually work.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 09:44 PM
Anyway, I guess I'm outnumbered here. At least I gave it a try :smallbiggrin:

Aw, I guess I can back you up on some accounts... well, if we were playing Mage, at least. The answer would be "Yes, for all coincidental magic. No, for all vulgar magic."

But I like my vulgar Mind magic....

Shazzbaa
2007-01-18, 09:45 PM
I'm of the opinion that the more you explain something, the less sense it makes. If you just say, "He can fly," then we nod and accept that this happens. If you try to apply pseudo-scientific physics explanations to tell us why he can fly, then we begin to doubt (...it's like some kind of uncanny valley of explanation... :smallconfused: ).

Thus, I don't think we should particularly TRY to explain magic with science/physics, as it becomes less and less believable the more we do it.

I can see someone applying obvious science to a spell; I'd consider that creative and cool....but the line between being creative and killing catgirls is rather fine. ^^;

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 09:47 PM
Planeship dosn't over exceed lightspeed. In our world there are no other planes but in the D and D universe maybe you can get to other planes of existence where here there are barriers.

Well according to current trend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory) in physics there are other universe which planes are kind of are.

Weezer
2007-01-18, 09:48 PM
I think that magic conforms to laws of physics, maybe ones that we don't know of or ones we don't understand but it conforms. Maybe a spell like fireball, instead of creating fire from nothing, actually just releases all the energy stored in bat guano in a big explosion. By the way a catgirl just died.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 09:53 PM
I think that magic conforms to laws of physics, maybe ones that we don't know of or ones we don't understand...

When I read that, I thought of Cthulhu. Then I read your signature. Or maybe I glimpsed it and then read your post. Either way, interesting.

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 09:53 PM
Ah, but Plane Shift goes to any point on another plane.

So, assume you have points A and B four light-years apart on Plane 1, a Point C on Plane 2.

Plane Shift from Point A to near Point C, then from Point C to near Point B takes two rounds, or a day, tops, not four years, whether you're talking percieved time or standard, semi-objective time (of course, since time remains constant regardless of which plane of existence you're on, even if it doesn't work entirely the same way, that encourages an idea of Multiversal Objective Time, also compromizing Relativity, but not Aristotelean physics).

Gate can likewise circumvent similar limitations.

You're forgetting that space can be bent and current laws of physics doesn't even have a limit to how much space you bend. Many physicist even suggest to get around light year speed limit. What happens is you bend space so that two spaces meet and then you move to that point and suddenly you could've jumped different location in space. This is how Hyper Space works and the FTL jump drives of Battle Star Galactica the new series.

Aximili
2007-01-18, 09:57 PM
Aw, I guess I can back you up on some accounts... well, if we were playing Mage, at least. The answer would be "Yes, for all coincidental magic. No, for all vulgar magic."

But I like my vulgar Mind magic....
That made me miss playing mage.:smallfrown: (Stupid storyteller who wants us to play humans)

Kantolin
2007-01-18, 09:58 PM
Arguably, one could play a wizard who relies on physics that actually work.

Since laws of physics which state 'you cannot do this' rather fail when someone can, for pretty much any reason. You can reasonably cop-out and just say 'Eh, it's magic', but people have done that historically for centuries.

I can imagine several wizards and scholars would simply revise the laws of physics such that they fit what visibly goes on in their world.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 09:59 PM
You're forgetting that space can be bent and current laws of physics doesn't even have a limit to how much space you bend. Many physicist even suggest to get around light year speed limit. What happens is you bend space so that two spaces meet and then you move to that point and suddenly you could've jumped different location in space. This is how Hyper Space works and the FTL jump drives of Battle Star Galactica the new series.

That reminds me of a Heinlein book I read, but I forget which one. It had 3d chess in it too...


That made me miss playing mage.:smallfrown: (Stupid storyteller who wants us to play humans)

But humans are awesome!

Shazzbaa
2007-01-18, 09:59 PM
By the way a catgirl just died.

This whole thread is catgirl genocide. :smalltongue:

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:01 PM
This whole thread is catgirl genocide. :smalltongue:

Quick Shazzbaa, draw some more!

Indoril
2007-01-18, 10:02 PM
*Egging Shazzbaa on* So guys how would Time Stop work under the laws of physics?

Athenodorus
2007-01-18, 10:02 PM
Physics _is_ magic. Our material components are just a bit more extensive in the real world.
I would vote that SOME spells have no foundation in physics, but otherwise...

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:03 PM
*Egging Shazzbaa on* So guys how would Time Stop work under the laws of physics?

Well obviously, Time is an illusion, because it's an imperfect perception of a fourth dimension. So Time Stop simply allows the Caster to properly perceive this fourth dimension and thereby move about it at will, while the other people are stuck.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-01-18, 10:04 PM
Just wondering, where did the whole, science kills Catgirls come from? I've used it myself but I'm curious as to the origin.

Athenodorus
2007-01-18, 10:05 PM
*Egging Shazzbaa on* So guys how would Time Stop work under the laws of physics?

Dunno. I don't know how my TV works, either, though.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 10:05 PM
Just wondering, where did the whole, science kills Catgirls come from? I've used it myself but I'm curious as to the origin.

It spawned from a much more lewd meme on another forum which we shant speak of.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:07 PM
It spawned from a much more lewd meme on another forum which we shant speak of.

I thought that the particular lewd meme of which you do not speak predated the unsaid forum.

I bet Romans invented it.

"Ubi suifutues, Juppiter feles occidiet!"

Indoril
2007-01-18, 10:08 PM
If that's real Latin, Shazzbaa please translate it for us.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:09 PM
My grammar is a bit rusty, so I don't know if "suifutues" is right, or if I did the subjunctive properly, and possibly I should have used "***" rather than "ubi".

Edit: Oh, well given that I can't use that on the boards, I guess "ubi" works.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-18, 10:10 PM
"When you please yourself, Jupiter kills a cat."

Athenodorus
2007-01-18, 10:12 PM
Thankfully, cats breed quickly.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:17 PM
"When you please yourself, Jupiter kills a cat."

Yep, you got it. That was my gist.

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 10:26 PM
Good thing cats have nine lives but how fast do they breed because nine lives is not even enough for that.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-01-18, 10:31 PM
D&D magic flat out doesn't work with physics. In it's own universe, it is a sort of physics, but it messes up physics as we know it so much... eh.

However, many or most of D&D's non-magic rules also disagree with physics.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:37 PM
However, many or most of D&D's non-magic rules also disagree with physics.

True. Even near superhuman people shouldn't be able to take that much damage, for one thing.

Aximili
2007-01-18, 10:44 PM
However, many or most of D&D's non-magic rules also disagree with physics.
Like which?

EDIT: Oh yes. These =P

Well, damage is a very relative think in D&D. It's one of it's flaws, but not because of physics.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:55 PM
Like which?

EDIT: Oh yes. These =P

Well, damage is a very relative think in D&D. It's one of it's flaws, but not because of physics.

Getting hit by an axe isn't physics? There has to be something about force in there.

Anyway, time for some math. Let us pit a level 20 wizard vs a level 20 barbarian. The wizard, let us say, has 80 hit points because he has a con of 14. The barbarian, let us say, has a greataxe, which does 1d10 damage. Assuming the barbarian has, oh, let's say 20 strength, which is a strength mod of +5, and even if he does the x1.5 for wielding it in both hands, that's still only up to 51, and that's on a critical hit.

Realistically, shouldn't a good hit with an axe kill you? Or at least leave you bleeding to death?

TheOOB
2007-01-18, 10:59 PM
Well first of all, we have very few laws of physics, for instances there are laws of gravity, but gravity itself is still just a theory.

That said, magic is, if nothing else, the ability to defy the normal laws of physics in order to aid you. The teleport spell doesn't move you really past, it moves you to the astral plane which is omipresent in the multiverse, then moves you back to the material plane in your desired location. Major Creation acually creates matter from nothing, something that can't be done in the system of normal physics.

Emperor Tippy
2007-01-18, 11:02 PM
Sure. Magic could conform to D&D physics.

Just imagine magic as a very efficient engine. A single paper clip, if converted to energy 100% efficiently, would produce enough power to power the US for a year.

And most spells have material components. That disappear when you cast the spell. Fireball? Bat Guano to heat and light.

Timestop? Read its description, it just speeds you up so much that everything else appears to stand still. Perhaps you are just accelerated to a very high speed instantly. Relativity.

Teleport? Quantum physics allows for wormholes which can solve that nicely. You turn your body to pure energy, crate a microscopic wormhole, and reform yourself on the other side.

EDIT: Incorrect OOB, matter can be created from energy. It is not created from nothing, just invisible energy.

averagejoe
2007-01-18, 11:15 PM
You could definately go into quantum physics to justify plane shift, but I don't think that anyone wants to do that.

Except me. I do love me some quantum.

No you don't. No one likes quantum. No one UNDERSTANDS quantum. Not even quantum physicists like quantum. :smallbiggrin:

The whole question hinges on what you mean by physics. Can magic be explained by the laws of physics as we know them? Of course not. There's no intrinsic physical law that deals with good, evil, law, or chaos, so protection from spells would make no sense, to name one of the more glaring examples. The physical universe as we know it doesn't have any kind of intrinsic morality built in.

Now, if you mean the laws of physics as they might be written in another world, that's another story. In fact, the magic in DnD isn't really magic, it's science. It has exact, controllable, reproducable results. Simply because it isn't possible as we know it doesn't make it unscientific. DnD takes a rather Fullmetal Alchemist approach to magic, where drawing circles just so will modify and change matter just so.

To respond to Athenodorus above, it doesn't follow that physics is magic. It isn't, by definition.

Now, of course, DnD magic has to be scientific because it's a game with (more or less) precise rules. You need a system that tells everyone exactly what happens. It isn't really *magic* magic, though. That sort of thing is found more in things like The Lord of the Rings or The Last Unicorn. In each magic is not fully controlable, or logical at all. Doing one set of actions will never produce exactly the same result. That's magic, not science.

Edit: For those of you talking about matter/energy conversion: do you have any idea how much energy it actually takes to convert energy into even simple matter? Do you have any idea how much more enrgy it would take to structure this into something complex like, say, a fiendish dire rat? Seriously, where is all this energy coming from?

Aximili
2007-01-18, 11:17 PM
Realistically, shouldn't a good hit with an axe kill you? Or at least leave you bleeding to death?
Yes. But, as I said, damage is a very relative thing in D&D. And so are attacks, hits, and HP. (I really wish it was more objective, but every system has it's flaws). So, when you roll an attack and exceed the opponent's AC, the effectiveness of your attack depends not only on your damage, but also on his HP.

A critical hit is not necessarily a blow to the neck, or to the chest, or even an major blow for that matter, it is only a hit critical to the combat. If you are a farmer, a critical hit is pretty much a blow to the neck. But veteran warriors are highly careful with combat, and they are also highly proficient, they know how to duck, dodge or simply throw their arm in the way to lessen the blow and reduce it to a scratch or minor injury. HP doesn't simply measure your muscles and bulk, it also measures your ability to simply keep yourself alive. And as your opponents makes more and more close calls (any attack that exceeds your AC) your stamina decreases, and eventualy you'll dodge out of an attack a split-second too late.


Major Creation acually creates matter from nothing, something that can't be done in the system of normal physics.
Why can't major creation use matter from another plane or something. Maybe even transform energy into matter, though that would take an enormous amount of it :P
The Psionics explore something like that, many of their powers use something I believe they call ectoplasm.

averagejoe
2007-01-18, 11:26 PM
Why can't major creation use matter from another plane or something. Maybe even transform energy into matter, though that would take an enormous amount of it :P
The Psionics explore something like that, many of their powers use something I believe they call ectoplasm.

Yes, but both of those things are outside the realms of modern physics. And getting energy spontaneously from wherever is just silly.

Kantolin
2007-01-18, 11:29 PM
And getting energy spontaneously from wherever is just silly.

Man, you wouldn't like historical people's reaction to, say, electricity.

Or on a more comical note, where frogs come from. You'd be hard pressed to prove to someone that toads didn't come from mud. ^_^ Or that people could travel over I believe it was 30mph without dying from the strain.

A Pointy Object
2007-01-18, 11:31 PM
Of course you all realize... this all gets thrown out the window when the wizards becomes epic.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 11:42 PM
If we can convert ALL the bat guano into energy for that fireball, then surely there's enough energy floating around to create stuff.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-18, 11:48 PM
Yes. But, as I said, damage is a very relative thing in D&D. And so are attacks, hits, and HP. (I really wish it was more objective, but every system has it's flaws). So, when you roll an attack and exceed the opponent's AC, the effectiveness of your attack depends not only on your damage, but also on his HP.

A critical hit is not necessarily a blow to the neck, or to the chest, or even an major blow for that matter, it is only a hit critical to the combat. If you are a farmer, a critical hit is pretty much a blow to the neck. But veteran warriors are highly careful with combat, and they are also highly proficient, they know how to duck, dodge or simply throw their arm in the way to lessen the blow and reduce it to a scratch or minor injury. HP doesn't simply measure your muscles and bulk, it also measures your ability to simply keep yourself alive. And as your opponents makes more and more close calls (any attack that exceeds your AC) your stamina decreases, and eventualy you'll dodge out of an attack a split-second too late.

An invisible Rogue attacks our high-level Fighter comrade. He's actually a ninth-level Rogue, but his Sneak Attack damage alone will automatically one-shot virtually any first-level Commoner. Said Fighter is naked in his shower. And yet the Rogue will never have any hope of killing him, even though he's doing exactly the same attack and the Fighter has no possible manner of defending himself (and before you talk about the logistics of sneaking up on a fighter in the shower, let's say he's just getting out. Or heck, the Rogue could just be a treacherous lover). Note also that even if the Fighter is asleep, the Rogue is far less likely to kill him with a coup de grace.

TimeWizard
2007-01-18, 11:49 PM
This is exactly what I mean. Teleport is extremely fast, but it doesn't exceed light-speed. That still allows you to go anywhere in the world in the same round you cast it.

Like-wise, a fireball spell would consume from the elemental plane of fire the same amount of energy that it produces with the explosion.

If you decrease the size of a boulder, make it roll, and then dissipate the spell, it would actually slow down as it increases in size.

Teleportation is instantaneous movement. You don't travel the distance, you "jump" it; disappearing at one point and reappear in another. You can teleport through walls.

Suzaku
2007-01-19, 12:12 AM
Again by bending space so that two spaces are right next to each other you can instantly transport yourself to a different location. Yes physics support this and is one of the most likely way that we'll move faster then light. Only problem is that you need some sort of barrier to prevent the gravity of bending space from crushing you and requires an a very large energy source. (For Star Trek warp drives, BattleStar Galactica's jump drive and wormhouse all bend space to travel faster then light)

Rebonack
2007-01-19, 12:36 AM
Teleportation is instantaneous movement. You don't travel the distance, you "jump" it; disappearing at one point and reappear in another. You can teleport through walls.

As has been pointed out, that isn't how teleportation works in DnD.

oriong
2007-01-19, 12:38 AM
No, D+D Magic doesn't work with modern day earth physics at all. Of course, it doesn't matter if it 'supposedly' did because D+D rules aren't meant to work with physics. They don't care. This is because, shockingly enough, physics doesn't follow the laws of play-balance. The energy required to fly isn't somehow wonderfully the same amount of energy as it takes to produce a bright lightbulb or a blast of fire, although these are all equated in magic.

First, while it's very easy to say that magic is just energy being converted to matter/other energy it's still ignoring the fact that waving your hands about and saying words don't do this. That's ignoring real world physics right there.

Second point is that it's extraordinarily easy to see that magic violates the law of conservation of energy: Obscuring Mist is a 1st level spell, it is a cloud of fog the same size as Fog Cloud, however Obscuring mist moves with you, this means that although the mass of mist is the same, the 1st level spell uses more energy, because it is being moved. But the second level spell takes more oomph because it has more in-game utility.

To take obscuring mist again. It's a cloud of water: let's assume about an ounce of water total. Creating that much matter is the energy equivalent of 608.97 kilotons of TNT. For comparison the very first atomic bombs had something like a 10-15 kiloton range.

A 0 level spell should be able to produce the energy equivalent of an atomic bomb, a 9th level spell should be able to crack open continents.

Now, of course you can make up explanations of all of these, but really D+D never attempted to follow physics. it's just not a concern.

GolemsVoice
2007-01-19, 03:56 AM
I can totally life with a wizard flying, or fireballs and things, even time travel and time stopping. There is no need to explain it. It's magic, it doesn't work via physic laws. That's why we call it magic.
But if you want to take it to the phsyics level, either explain everything, or nothing. Saying: "This spell could work, becaus so-and-so, but THIS spell is magic." is even weirder than explaining all spells, or none.
Also, I think it would be funny to have a DnD plane where all spells must somehow be explained. You can say: "By chanting this words, I can create a path where friction is disabled, by this allowing me to throw the guy from the tower by just tipping is shoulder", but not: "I create a ball of hug blue fire, which dances and plays music, and little clowns appear randmly, just because I have THE POWER."

Zincorium
2007-01-19, 04:28 AM
I think there is a lot of room for people to interpret this differently. I think that you could (theoretically) explain the majority of magic via a unique, universally available energy source (like the weave in fearun) with a substrate nano-technology which converts that energy to a particular form or destroys and recreates matter in different place depending on commands recieved.

On the other hand, explaining all spells via current laws of physics and no mechanism for it happening simply doesn't work.

Saph
2007-01-19, 04:40 AM
Well, physics is science, and the whole principle of science is that you look at the way the world is, not the way it's supposed to be.

So D&D physics is going to accept magic, in the same way our physics accepts the law of gravity. It's obviously there, so you have to deal with it.

Anyway, you have to use SOME degree of physics for the game to make any sense - kinetic energy is physics, gravity is physics, friction is physics, a sword stabbing something is physics . . .

- Saph

Kantolin
2007-01-19, 04:47 AM
Well, physics is science, and the whole principle of science is that you look at the way the world is, not the way it's supposed to be.

So D&D physics is going to accept magic, in the same way our physics accepts the law of gravity. It's obviously there, so you have to deal with it.

Thank you, Saph. ^_^ That exactly, people!

Zincorium
2007-01-19, 05:14 AM
Well, physics is science, and the whole principle of science is that you look at the way the world is, not the way it's supposed to be.

So D&D physics is going to accept magic, in the same way our physics accepts the law of gravity. It's obviously there, so you have to deal with it.

Anyway, you have to use SOME degree of physics for the game to make any sense - kinetic energy is physics, gravity is physics, friction is physics, a sword stabbing something is physics . . .

- Saph

Well, the problem with integrating magic into a system of physics is that there are few to no discernable boundries or a clear cause/effect relationship between the trigger (the guestures and words of casting) and the result (anything from a fireball to a gate).

It's kind of like imaginary numbers: all well and good in theory, but impossible to demonstrate physically.

Kantolin
2007-01-19, 05:16 AM
Nah, you just make exceptions, and cases!

C'mon, these wizards have intelligence of 30. I'm sure they can figure something out.

Thomas
2007-01-19, 05:17 AM
This is exactly what I mean. Teleport is extremely fast, but it doesn't exceed light-speed. That still allows you to go anywhere in the world in the same round you cast it.

Like-wise, a fireball spell would consume from the elemental plane of fire the same amount of energy that it produces with the explosion.

Where's the physics here?

Teleport can move you more than 2,000+ miles in an instant. Not even 0.000001 seconds - an instant. Sorry, but that's way faster than 186,282.4 miles per second. (And even if this instant were actually 0.01 seconds - a hundreth of a second - then that'd be a speed of 1.074 "cees"). And then there's the whole issue of never actually passing through the intervening space - how does physics explain that?

And how does charm person fit with physics? How about wish? How about dominate person? These spells are the very definition of magic as opposite to science or reality. You mutter some words, and a person's behavior is mystically changed and constrained. How about trap the soul? How can physics explain transferring souls into gems? Even if you defined the soul as self and consciousness, divorcing it from a person's brain should obviously be impossible - and storing it into a piece of rock is ridiculous.


Planeship dosn't over exceed lightspeed. In our world there are no other planes but in the D and D universe maybe you can get to other planes of existence where here there are barriers.

So you think that "their laws of physics are entirely different" doesn't violate the actual laws of physics? Right...


It's all just stacking turtles on turtles. The less you explain magic, the better.

Saph
2007-01-19, 05:20 AM
Well, the problem with integrating magic into a system of physics is that there are few to no discernable boundries or a clear cause/effect relationship between the trigger (the guestures and words of casting) and the result (anything from a fireball to a gate).

Okay, so you throw out the cause/effect idea in physics, at least insofar as it relates to magic.

Basically, my point is that you dump a few good physicists into a D&D world, and within a century or so they should have a system of laws for understanding it. In fact, isn't that really what wizards in D&D are? They're the theoretical and experimental scientists of D&D, with the added benefit that they don't need engineers. :)

- Saph

Morty
2007-01-19, 06:43 AM
Well, I think that whole point of magic isn't ignoring laws of physic, but bending them or temporarily ignoring them. If wizard casts Fly, he doesn;t ignore gravity, but rather shuts it down for a while, which is different. Sadly, that doesn't apply to many of D&D spells, because they doesn't only ignore physics, but common sense and logic as well.:smalltongue:

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 06:49 AM
D&D magic has nothing to do with physics, and everything to do with game mechanics.

If you use magic to shrink a giant boulder to the size of a pebble, put it in your sling, throw it, and then let it turn back into a giant boulder, it will not slow down because of conservation of momentum (and incidentally, in this case it would be impossible to conserve momentum and energy at the same time, without pleading the universal magical "energy dump") and *even if it did* it wouldn't matter, because it would still be doing the damage of a thrown boulder, which is based purely on mass in D&D, and has nothing to do with momentum or energy.

Besides, if you *do* plead some universal "energy source" which powers spells, you pretty much have to accept that your spell levels go to hell in a hatbox.

If you can use magic to harness enough energy to create two grammes of acid from nowhere, for a 0 level spell, you should be able to use a similar spell (of a similar level) to channel that energy into, say, a massive explosion capable of destroying half of faerun.

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 07:07 AM
I opened this thread mostly for the poll.
I've seen many (too many, in my opinion) people say that magic goes against any notion of physics and you absolutely cannot use physics to explain magic, answer any question about magic, nor make any assumption about a doubt left by the description of a pell.

Do you think there can be an agreement between Spells and Physics?
(Hope I've been specific enough).

Ok, this one is actually a major issue to me. Many people seem to think that, since it's fantasy, there's no use trying to explain anything by physics. I think that's a major fallacy. IMO, any world is first and foremost ruled by the laws of physics (because that's the only way a world can work, obviously) and after that, as an "overlay", there is magic, and magic is a way of affecting the laws of physics through an unseen, supernatural force. So of course, if a spell creates acid it does not conjure forth some sort of abstract "energy", it creates corrosive ions. The same goes for electricity: a lightning spell creates a potential difference between the caster and the target, thereby causing lightning. There are of course spells that deal with purely spiritual matters, but that's not really the point because they deal with magic itself.

EDIT: Dan_Hemmens: I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I believe that one just has to accept that magic can create and destroy energy, breaking the golden rule of physics. That's the supernatural part of it, it's what makes it magic. So, shrunk boulder would have an appropriate amount of momentum added to it in midflight. If magic can create energy it can do that to.

Athenodorus
2007-01-19, 07:47 AM
it doesn't follow that physics is magic. It isn't, by definition.

That first requires you to define magic. If you personally define it as "Something outside of Physics" then that's up to you. :) Here's what I get from www.dictionary.com:

2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.

Also, Jargon File:
As yet unexplained, or too complicated toexplain

Is magic outside our current understanding of Physics? Sure. But to say magic is the opposite of physics isn't true either. As to whether physics is magic, it sure allows for control of the forces of nature. :)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 09:01 AM
Ok, this one is actually a major issue to me. Many people seem to think that, since it's fantasy, there's no use trying to explain anything by physics. I think that's a major fallacy. IMO, any world is first and foremost ruled by the laws of physics (because that's the only way a world can work, obviously) and after that, as an "overlay", there is magic, and magic is a way of affecting the laws of physics through an unseen, supernatural force. So of course, if a spell creates acid it does not conjure forth some sort of abstract "energy", it creates corrosive ions. The same goes for electricity: a lightning spell creates a potential difference between the caster and the target, thereby causing lightning. There are of course spells that deal with purely spiritual matters, but that's not really the point because they deal with magic itself.

But that's exactly my point: the moment you start thinking in scientific terms, the arbitrary and silly ways in which spells actually work stops making sense.

If your Lightning Bolt spell actually creates a "potential difference" between caster and target, then the spell would fry the caster as well, that's how electricity works. There would be a massive movement of electrons through the caster's body, which would kill them utterly.

If you start trying to explain D&D spellcasting in terms of sub-atomic physics, the lowest level cantrip becomes a source of city-destroying power. If a charcter can manipulate atoms with enough precision to conjure a powerful acid, or rearrange their facial features then by definition they have enough power to completely destroy anything that stands in their way. The same magic which allows you to conjure "corrosive ions" *must* allow you to rip somebody's body apart, atom by atom.

If you can create matter, then by definition you can create energy. If you can create energy, then the easiest way to create it is as a large, uncontained explosion. This is why nuclear fusion works for bombs, but not for power stations.

[quote[EDIT: Dan_Hemmens: I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I believe that one just has to accept that magic can create and destroy energy, breaking the golden rule of physics. That's the supernatural part of it, it's what makes it magic. So, shrunk boulder would have an appropriate amount of momentum added to it in midflight. If magic can create energy it can do that to.[/quote]

The boulder is a side issue, based chiefly on the dubious "science" people use to get around people exploiting the (broken) thrown object rules.

My central point is that the moment you try to explain magic in terms of scientific laws, it stops looking anything like magic.

One of the following two things can be true. Either magic works on scientific principles, or magic consists of a big list of arbitrary effects. The two are mutually exclusive.

If Acid Splash grants you the power to summon corrostive ions from nowhere, it should also grant you the power to summon their respective anti-particles from nowhere (since in terms of physics, there's no real difference between the two) this allows you to use a level zero spell to create a matter-antimatter bomb.

Or, you can accept that Acid Splash, rather than creating "corrosive ions" instead creates "1D3 damage".

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 09:06 AM
That first requires you to define magic. If you personally define it as "Something outside of Physics" then that's up to you. :) Here's what I get from www.dictionary.com: (http://www.dictionary.com:)

2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.

Also, Jargon File:
As yet unexplained, or too complicated toexplain

Is magic outside our current understanding of Physics? Sure. But to say magic is the opposite of physics isn't true either. As to whether physics is magic, it sure allows for control of the forces of nature. :)

Which is why definitions are always a useless contribution to a discussion. Most dictionaries would define juggling as "keeping a large number of objects in the air by throwing and catching them." It's not a definition that's particularly useful to the discussion of contact juggling.

The dictionary.com definition is meaningless. The Jargon file definition is flippant. Neither give you any insight into what "magic" might mean in general, let alone in the context of D&D.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 09:07 AM
You can say: "By chanting this words, I can create a path where friction is disabled, by this allowing me to throw the guy from the tower by just tipping is shoulder", but not: "I create a ball of hug blue fire, which dances and plays music, and little clowns appear randmly, just because I have THE POWER."

Again, if this were Mage, this makes perfect sense to me. The first would probably be coincidental (Oops, he slipped) While the second would surely be vulgar. (At least in this plane)


Even if you defined the soul as self and consciousness, divorcing it from a person's brain should obviously be impossible - and storing it into a piece of rock is ridiculous.

Actually, I disagree with you. There is some anecdotal evidence for Out of Body Experiences, which involve that. Now, I know it's merely anecdotal, but there is a lot of it. I read an article in Discover about it, even, where they were trying to figure out consciousness.


Okay, so you throw out the cause/effect idea in physics, at least insofar as it relates to magic.

Basically, my point is that you dump a few good physicists into a D&D world, and within a century or so they should have a system of laws for understanding it. In fact, isn't that really what wizards in D&D are? They're the theoretical and experimental scientists of D&D, with the added benefit that they don't need engineers. :)

- Saph

What's wrong with engineers??

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:09 AM
Actually, I disagree with you. There is some anecdotal evidence for Out of Body Experiences, which involve that. Now, I know it's merely anecdotal, but there is a lot of it. I read an article in Discover about it, even, where they were trying to figure out consciousness.

There's also a lot of anecdotal evidonce for, y'know, Elvis still being alive.

This means that people think they saw Elvis. It doesn't mean that they actually saw Elvis. Same with an out of body experience. People felt certain things--this is not the same as those things actually happening. The brain is a complicated place, and people can feel all sorts of things.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 09:11 AM
There's also a lot of anecdotal evidonce for, y'know, Elvis still being alive.

This means that people think they saw Elvis. It doesn't mean that they actually saw Elvis. Same with an out of body experience. People felt certain things--this is not the same as those things actually happening. The brain is a complicated place, and people can feel all sorts of things.

Well sure, but maybe they did. You surely don't know for certain that Elvis is dead, right? That's the underlying idea here.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:16 AM
We know Elvis is dead for any relevant values of certain. Get into "but we can't REALLY know anything" and you've lapsed into existentialism, and I don't think you want to do that.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 09:18 AM
We know Elvis is dead for any relevant values of certain. Get into "but we can't REALLY know anything" and you've lapsed into existentialism, and I don't think you want to do that.

I think it's too late for that. People have already played the "there are no laws in science, on the theories" card and the "any sufficiently advanced technology" card.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:21 AM
I wish people would look up what a scientific theory is before saying "it's just a theory".

I especially wish this were the case with certainly folks who refuse to understand evolution and how it works, but that's not relevant here.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 09:23 AM
We know Elvis is dead for any relevant values of certain. Get into "but we can't REALLY know anything" and you've lapsed into existentialism, and I don't think you want to do that.

I do too want to do that!

See, magic works because nothing really exists. :smalltongue:

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:25 AM
And no one can understand the futility of it all, right? You're going to angst about it on your livejournal? You tried so hard and got so far, and in the end it doesn't even matter?
Crawling in your skin, these wounds they will not heal?

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 09:27 AM
And no one can understand the futility of it all, right? You're going to angst about it on your livejournal? You tried so hard and got so far, and in the end it doesn't even matter?
Crawling in your skin, these wounds they will not heal?

Yes, but only after I cut myself a bit, you know.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 09:28 AM
And bleed tears. While listening to emo music.

clarkvalentine
2007-01-19, 09:43 AM
We have a panel of the learned and the wise here today to discuss an important question: Does magic obey the laws of physics?

Wizard: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic doesn't obey the laws of physics, it obeys the laws of magic, which require years of study and mystical experience to comprehend."

Cleric: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic does whatever My God The Most High says it can do, whose will is vast and boundless in scope and incomprehensible to us mortals."

Sorcerer: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic manifests when I impose my will upon the universe; it is limited only by the boundaries of my imagination and inner strength."

Bard: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic is governed by the the mortal soul. That which moves the heart - art, dance, poetry - is the most powerful force in the universe."

Druid: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic is the collective power of all living creatures, and pays no heed to such reductionist concepts as physics."

Gnomish Tinker: "Damn straight it does."

Thomas
2007-01-19, 09:53 AM
Actually, I disagree with you. There is some anecdotal evidence for Out of Body Experiences, which involve that. Now, I know it's merely anecdotal, but there is a lot of it. I read an article in Discover about it, even, where they were trying to figure out consciousness.

Anecdotal evidence?

ROFL.

There's a lot of anecdotal experience about the existence of any of various deities, too. (Or Elvis; that's an even better example, I guess. Or little green/grey men who like conducting rectal examinations. Or demons. Or magic. Or chi.)


Well sure, but maybe they did. You surely don't know for certain that Elvis is dead, right? That's the underlying idea here.

Sorry, the burden of proof rests on the person claiming they saw Elvis. And if you make extraordinary claims (out-of-body experiences), you must provide extraordinary proof (what exactly would prove an experience that is by definition personal and impossible to observe?).

Here's how science works in this example: Elvis' death is known with about as much certainty as you can have in observing empirical phenomena. Until someone proves the hypothesis of "Elvis lives," reasonable people should and will work on the assumption that Elvis is, indeed, dead.

And let us not mix existentialism into a discussion about science or scientific methods; that's just pointless. Any discussion of science obviously assumes that phenomena exist and can be observed; to assume otherwise is pointless, since it leads to absolutely nothing useful.


Ok, this one is actually a major issue to me. Many people seem to think that, since it's fantasy, there's no use trying to explain anything by physics. I think that's a major fallacy. IMO, any world is first and foremost ruled by the laws of physics (because that's the only way a world can work, obviously) and after that, as an "overlay", there is magic, and magic is a way of affecting the laws of physics through an unseen, supernatural force. So of course, if a spell creates acid it does not conjure forth some sort of abstract "energy", it creates corrosive ions. The same goes for electricity: a lightning spell creates a potential difference between the caster and the target, thereby causing lightning. There are of course spells that deal with purely spiritual matters, but that's not really the point because they deal with magic itself.

Nope.

Glorantha, for instance, works absolutely wonderfully with nothing but laws of magic. (And so does Discworld, by the by. The speed of light on Discworld, anyone?)

On Glorantha, rocks don't fall because of gravity. They fall because of Heavy Earth, the god. Sometimes Heavy Earth forgets his pacts with people, and people in an area will find that they are being pulled down toward the earth, slowed down, even almost unable to move.

Gloranthan rivers don't flow into the sea because of physics - in fact, they used to flow away from the sea, onto the land (and into the Middle Air, which is why the air above you is blue), until the Spike exploded and all the rivers and waters rushed toward the center of the world to fill the hole, creating a great whirlpool.

Lightning is Fire taken as spoils of war by the Storm Gods. Darkness isn't the absence of light, but an element in itself. The Sun really is a god riding his horse or chariot across the sky - if you possess the magical ability to fly through the different magical planes between the earth and the Sky World, you can fly up there and see the dude doing it. (Although which dude you see depends on which particular metaphysical realm you're in. If you happen to be a Western sorcerer in the Essence Plane, it is just a ball of flame up there.)

There's countless other examples, both in Glorantha and in other fantasy worlds. Worlds with no physics work just fine.

Jayabalard
2007-01-19, 09:55 AM
I'd rather have my magic suspending the normal laws of physics, if they even apply (D&D seems to obey Aristotelean physics more than Newtonian, anyway).

Besides, Plane Shift lets you go to places that don't hold any correspondence to where you are; there is no way to reach other planes at any speed, nor can you specifically give a range from a corresponding point for Plane Shift, therefore Plane Shift violates the lightspeed limit.

Not really: Shifting planes means that you've moved, or shifted your orientation along, some other dimensional axis. The actual distance traveled may be small, or even 0.

To pull in some sci-fi... it's no different than the FTL travel in Heinlein's Starman Jones, or Tunnel in the sky, which aren't uncommon among the hard science sci-fi writers.

The poll questions aren't phrased well, and there really should be a more answers

1. Magic can be completly explained using our current world notion of physics (with the minor addition of you can use magic, but all of the effects must have physics explanations.
2. Magic can be explained based off of real world physics but there are some "laws of physics" that magic obeys that either do not apply in the real world.
3. Magic does allow the caster to bend the rules or reality; it works outside of normal physics.
4. There are no laws of physics.

personally, I can see basing a campaign off of 2 or 3; as long as you pick which one for your campaign and are consistant, there shouldn't be a problem. 1 & 4 might be doable as well, but 1 is a pain to keep track of, and 4 is so random that it can hard to play (it's ok if you have a loonie for a GM)

edit: iirc, the speed of light on discword is ~90 mph in most places, depending how much magic is in the area.

The White Knight
2007-01-19, 10:21 AM
Of course not. If magic could work with physics, we'd have magic.

As scientific breakthroughs were made throughout the ages, some scientists were regarded as sorcerors for some of the newfangled things they did. So in that respect, I guess we do have 'magic'. And, of course, there are no doubt countless 'magical' things that we don't know how to do just yet.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 10:25 AM
That's a completely specious argument, especially when you consider that science, modern science, didn't exist "throughout the ages".

The White Knight
2007-01-19, 10:40 AM
Of course not. It wouldn't be 'modern' if it was always around, would it? :P

My point is that in a world without our 'modern science', some breakthroughs that are perfectly physically sound could be seen as 'magic'. To such people, we'd be magicians; to them, a TV might appear to be some sort of scrying device, a microwave would just magically heat up your food, etc.

That said, the way it happens in D&D is an entirely different story; obviously there's some sort of non-scientific business going on when a lightning bolt jumps from your hand and streaks toward someone. Such things might be able to be explained by physical means (perhaps what the spell really does is cause a massive potential difference between your target and your hand), but how that comes about is obviously not scientific in nature. In that respect, I agree with you.

Indon
2007-01-19, 10:43 AM
Personally, I run my campaigns (when the issue comes up, anyway) such that magic exists due to the distinct laws of physics of an individual universe. Magic is compatible between some universes, or sometimes different (such that magic may malfunction), or sometimes even nonexistent.

In my opinion, though, the issue's only really applicable in multi-planar campaign environments like Spelljammer or maybe Ravenloft.


That said,



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic."

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 10:46 AM
That said, the way it happens in D&D is an entirely different story; obviously there's some sort of non-scientific business going on when a lightning bolt jumps from your hand and streaks toward someone. Such things might be able to be explained by physical means (perhaps what the spell really does is cause a massive potential difference between your target and your hand), but how that comes about is obviously not scientific in nature. In that respect, I agree with you.

Except, of course, not. Potential difference would mean the wizard got lightning-bolted, too.

Such things can't be explained by physical means. D&D just doesn't work that way. "Lightning", in D&D, isn't a flow of electrons. If you fire a Lightning Bolt (or if a storm fires a lightning bolt, as per the druid spell) into some water, it won't electrocute creatures outside of the 5'x5' square it hit. It's just that we have no real way of understanding what lightning is if it can't be described in physical terms.

Thomas
2007-01-19, 11:00 AM
My point is that in a world without our 'modern science', some breakthroughs that are perfectly physically sound could be seen as 'magic'. To such people, we'd be magicians; to them, a TV might appear to be some sort of scrying device, a microwave would just magically heat up your food, etc.

Actually, if you follow Arthur C. Clarke's famous statement, most modern technology is already magic. Many, many people perform rituals (that often, hilariously, involve actual superstitions) that cause the items to create effects. They have no idea what's actually going on, and couldn't even begin to explain them.

Of course, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion, since D&D magic means actual magic, not "something you can't explain."

The White Knight
2007-01-19, 11:01 AM
Except, of course, not. Potential difference would mean the wizard got lightning-bolted, too.

Such things can't be explained by physical means. D&D just doesn't work that way. "Lightning", in D&D, isn't a flow of electrons. If you fire a Lightning Bolt (or if a storm fires a lightning bolt, as per the druid spell) into some water, it won't electrocute creatures outside of the 5'x5' square it hit. It's just that we have no real way of understanding what lightning is if it can't be described in physical terms.

So maybe not his hand, but close to it? :P

The fact that D&D lightning (at least from a storm cloud) doesn't behave the same as real lightning is just a side effect of mechanical simplification. It's exceedingly difficult to model everything that realistically happens when you're bound by the confines of the d20 (or any other RPG) system.

Because of this fact, I suppose you're right. In a world where the RPG mechanics are the laws of physics, I guess it can't work without a number of obscenely overcomplicated houserulings.

The White Knight
2007-01-19, 11:02 AM
Of course, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion, since D&D magic means actual magic, not "something you can't explain."

D&D magic seems to be something we can't explain.

Thomas
2007-01-19, 11:09 AM
D&D magic seems to be something we can't explain.

Ha ha.

D&D magic is shooting lightning bolts, dominating minds, etc. It's not "anything we can't explain and that appears magical." It's "supernatural and spell-like effects, spells, magic items, and arcane and divine magic." The casters doing it almost certainly can explain it.

Joran
2007-01-19, 11:26 AM
There is the concept of a "techno-mage". Basically, he's a mage that uses technology to reproduce spell effects in some science fiction.

Can a lot of the spells in D&D be reproduced using sufficiently advanced technology and hand-waving? Sure. Heck, they came up with ways that a warp drive or teleporter could be built (using quantum physics and negative energy).

However, is this truly magic? Does the fact that it has a technical explanation make it not magical?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 11:31 AM
Does the fact that it has a technical explanation make it not magical?

Yes.
That would make it science.

Using technology to duplicate the effects of magic doesn't mean that technology is magic.

Telonius
2007-01-19, 11:38 AM
Magic can work as science fiction. All the magical energy is derived from a half-understood version of String Theory. Wizards and Sorcerors just use the other twelve dimensions that are hiding around normal matter to cast "spells."

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-19, 12:09 PM
Ok, I feel a bit humbled now... However, doesn't the books almost explicitly say that evocation spells (for example) summon energy from the inner planes of energy? That at least reduces a wizard's powers from world-destroying to merely powerful and say only that a spellcaster can work across planar boundaries, not create anything from thin air.

Joran
2007-01-19, 12:39 PM
Using technology to duplicate the effects of magic doesn't mean that technology is magic.

I agree with you. But to a primitive culture, a rifle would be magic. Does this mean that magic is a purely subjective one? Would a true scientist not believe in any magic? (Even if he can't explain something, he has faith that eventually science will be able to?)

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to wrap my head around this concept.

oriong
2007-01-19, 12:41 PM
No, then everything would be a Conjuration spell. Most all spells other than Conjuration manipulate local energy, or create effects from nothing.


But all this is ignoring the fact that the 'rules of magic' and the 'rules of physics' bow before the 'rules of the game' in D+D. It doesn't matter what takes more effort: the jump spell, enlarge person (which would create enough energy to blow up the moon by the way) acid splash, fireball, or time stop, it's all based purely on ideas of game balance, not physics.

Hell, even non-magical D+D doesn't follow physics: it's a game. That's all.


And the whole 'stuff is just transfered from another plane' doesn't work at all. It's all very well to say that's what's happening but attempting to explain D+D magic in terms of multi-dimensional theory butchers the real science so badly you might as well just make something up from scratch. Maybe all wizards get fusion reactors stuck up their behinds when they get their magic degree and that's where all their power comes from. It doesn't help that the Planes in D+D have absolutely zero to do with real scientific multi-dimensional theory.

If that's not enough here's an easy proof: The summon monster spells. They're a very basic example of moving stuff from one plane to another, but are they consistent? no. Their level is based purely on the power level of the monster summoned, not it's mass, not it's size, not even it's magical ability, spell resistance or saving throws: just raw utility. In fact, if the summon monster spells exist, why isn't planeshift a first level spell? it should be just as easy, even if it only lasts a number of rounds.

D+D doesn't follow any logic but game-balance, dressed up in a way to make it palatable enough not to feel arbitrary.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 12:51 PM
I agree with you. But to a primitive culture, a rifle would be magic. Does this mean that magic is a purely subjective one? Would a true scientist not believe in any magic? (Even if he can't explain something, he has faith that eventually science will be able to?)

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to wrap my head around this concept.


No, a rifle wouldn't be magic. A rifle might be perceived as magic. That's a big difference. We're talking about actual magic. If you want to wave a hand and say "there's a spaceship using quantum effects to do everything once its sensors detect the appropriate things (spell components/words/gestures)" to explain magic, you're making it science, but very poorly (and you then have to come up with ways how it all works, and then you're just emulating a fantasy setting with some poor, very soft sci-fi.

Joran
2007-01-19, 02:10 PM
Ah, I see, very illuminating.

As soon as there is an explanation using technology and solely technology (ie. no sucking energy from magical beings), then it ceases to be magic. Correct?

Suzaku
2007-01-19, 02:11 PM
Just one question many cat girls did this thread killed so far and how many will it kill?

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 02:17 PM
Just one question many cat girls did this thread killed so far and how many will it kill?

They're extinct. I think I revived some by bringing up existentialism, but then they were killed, too.

Weezer
2007-01-19, 02:30 PM
I just had another thought: What are the "laws of Physics" there are no laws of physics, just a bunch of theories that have never been proved wrong. even einsteins theory of relativity that is sparking the teleport debate is just a theory that we dont know how to break.

Suzaku
2007-01-19, 02:38 PM
I just had another thought: What are the "laws of Physics" there are no laws of physics, just a bunch of theories that have never been proved wrong. even einsteins theory of relativity that is sparking the teleport debate is just a theory that we dont know how to break.

Ummm Einsteins' theory was already broken we just happen to use majority of it into our current theory :P

averagejoe
2007-01-19, 02:46 PM
I just had another thought: What are the "laws of Physics" there are no laws of physics, just a bunch of theories that have never been proved wrong. even einsteins theory of relativity that is sparking the teleport debate is just a theory that we dont know how to break.

Yes, but a theory as it applies to science is a much firmer thing than a theory as it is used colloquially. You say, "just a bunch of theories that have never been proved wrong," but that's how science looks at everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. (Ideally, that is.) The idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is just a theory that has never been disproven. The idea that, upon letting go of a pen elevated above the earth, the pen will hurtle to the ground is just a theory that has never been disproven. You say that Einstein's relativity is just a theory that we don't know how to break; I'll do you one better. Newton's laws, the foundations upon which all (more or less) modern physics are built, are nothing more than theories that have never been disproven. That is, the idea that objects don't spontaneously speed up or change direction is just a theory that has never been disproven.

So, in other words, your words are correct, but it doesn't seem like you grasp their full implication.

Oh yes, and Einstein's theories haven't been broken, there has just been instances found where they don't fully explain everything.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 02:52 PM
Oh, and I meant to bring up this:

"Now if you don't mind, I'm a little preoccupied telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down." - V

NullAshton
2007-01-19, 02:53 PM
You hear that sound? I think it's the sounds of dozens of catgirls being killed because of this discussion.

Physics + fantasy = an unholy mix that causes catgirls to die.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 03:12 PM
There is the concept of a "techno-mage". Basically, he's a mage that uses technology to reproduce spell effects in some science fiction.

Can a lot of the spells in D&D be reproduced using sufficiently advanced technology and hand-waving? Sure. Heck, they came up with ways that a warp drive or teleporter could be built (using quantum physics and negative energy).

However, is this truly magic? Does the fact that it has a technical explanation make it not magical?

The problem with "techno mages" is that they actually make very little sense.

Specifically, yes, you could use real-world (or extrapolative real-world) science to produce effects which are similar to D&D spells, but you never ever would.

Take the good old Fireball. If you have the technology to create a device which is invisible to the naked eye, can be activated with an obscure command word, and can convert bat guano into a gargantuan explosion, you must also have the technology to make a much better and more efficient weapon. Like, say, a hand grenade.

"Techno-magic" is neither technology nor magic, it is a narrative device. It is predicated on the idea that, given a near unlimited level of technology, your priority would be to invent machines which look like fantasy spellcasting.

And a rifle would not look like magic to a primitive man. Even primitive people know what a weapon looks like. They should be able to make the leap from "bow" to "firearm" trivially. Now you could use modern technology to *simulate* magic, just like modern stage magicians do, but it would be the staging that made it magical, not the effect itself.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-19, 03:15 PM
There has to be some sort of Laws of Physics in the DnD universe because mages know how to perform certain actions to get certain effects. It's just that they call it the "Laws of Magic" instead. If Magic didn't follow certain laws, than how would Wizards be able to study hard and become omnipotent? I imagine that the "Laws of Magic" are also included in the UMD skill, explaining why Rogues can cast from wands if they spend enough time studying magical devices in general (and possibly even the Rogue ability to disable magical traps).

Now, there are no actual explanations regarding the "Laws of Magic." WotC never made them (I presume), and I doubt any of us will make sense of it. But in the context of the game world, the "Laws of Magic" exist.

CrazedGoblin
2007-01-19, 03:28 PM
Magic: Flicking a lightswitch which causes a rather large and very angry demon to apear infront of you.


Science: Flicking a lightswitch which causes the miricle of light to illuminate our homes unless you forgot to pay your bill.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 03:30 PM
There has to be some sort of Laws of Physics in the DnD universe because mages know how to perform certain actions to get certain effects.

But that has nothing to do with physics, and precious little to do with science.

Poetry has rules. Quite a lot of rules in fact. That doesn't mean that poetry can be usefully described as "following the laws of physics".

D&D magic follows some very simple laws, all of which relate to the game mechanics. None of these things have anything to do with a law of physics.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 03:30 PM
Magic: Flicking a lightswitch which causes a rather large and very angry demon to apear infront of you.

One's mother when one comes in later than their curfew?

CrazedGoblin
2007-01-19, 03:32 PM
One's mother when one comes in later than their curfew?

oh indeed hehe :P

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 03:33 PM
One's mother when one comes in later than their curfew?

Actually, that's a rather good extension of the analogy (although it probably wasn't intentional).

Magic in D&D follows rules, but they're rules like "you have to be in before curfew or your mother will be angry" not rules like "momentum is conserved in all interactions in a closed system". That is to say they are specific, subjective rules.

That's why the amount of damage a fireball does depends on your character's level.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 03:43 PM
D+D doesn't follow any logic but game-balance, dressed up in a way to make it palatable enough not to feel arbitrary.

Absolutely one hundred percent true and accurate. I'd also point out that pretty much any spell which *does* have its level based on any sort of "in-game" logic is legendarily abusable. Polymorph being the classic example "if you can turn into an ape, you can turn into a Legendary Dire Ape just as easily!"

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 03:48 PM
Actually, that's a rather good extension of the analogy (although it probably wasn't intentional).

Magic in D&D follows rules, but they're rules like "you have to be in before curfew or your mother will be angry" not rules like "momentum is conserved in all interactions in a closed system". That is to say they are specific, subjective rules.

That's why the amount of damage a fireball does depends on your character's level.

Yeah, I think that's probably the best way of looking at it. Kind of like on Discworld, where the most important rules are that of Literature.

Though I still rather like the explanation that nothing exists. I'm so going to run a campaign where this is true, and the PCs eventually figure it out, and then go to the real world, where they're sitting around a table playing a game.

Either that, or robots have taken over.

Aust_Arrowsplitter
2007-01-19, 04:00 PM
I don't think that magic and physics can coexist. Why? Simple: the very purpose of magic is to, as our dear friend Vaarsuvius put it, "Tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down." There are various spells which bend, or even outright break, such laws. For example: Meld into Stone. This spell allows the caster to cooexist with a stone that is at least the same size as she is. This violates the law of physics a lot of us use everyday: "No two objects can coexist in the same space at the same time." Another fun one? Spells that manipulate size. When a creature's size is changed via magic, its weight changes too, right? Well, that breaks the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Those are all I can think of at the moment, but yeah, physics and magic are like oil and water...

*walks off, grinning at the sound of catgirls dropping like flies*

CrazedGoblin
2007-01-19, 04:05 PM
Yeah, I think that's probably the best way of looking at it. Kind of like on Discworld, where the most important rules are that of Literature.

Though I still rather like the explanation that nothing exists. I'm so going to run a campaign where this is true, and the PCs eventually figure it out, and then go to the real world, where they're sitting around a table playing a game.

Either that, or robots have taken over.

yes but what if we ourselves sitting round this table playing DnD are also being played by people sitting round a table.... For example when you next lean into the frozen food section of your local supermarket and look to your left and see a miror and then to your right you see another one, you would see your self looking into an infinate mirror-based-frozen-food-dimesnion. Are you looking at them or are they watching you?.

averagejoe
2007-01-19, 04:44 PM
Actually, that's a rather good extension of the analogy (although it probably wasn't intentional).

Magic in D&D follows rules, but they're rules like "you have to be in before curfew or your mother will be angry" not rules like "momentum is conserved in all interactions in a closed system". That is to say they are specific, subjective rules.

That's why the amount of damage a fireball does depends on your character's level.

Actually, momentum is conserved in all interactions, no matter if the system is closed or not. If it wasn't then the universe would be rapidly loosing momentum and everything would stop, or gaining momenetum and everyone's atoms would jiggle out of control until they EXPLODE. (Okay, they might not actually explode, but bad stuff would go down. Gimmie a break, explosions are cool.)

The thing is, though, magic does follow momentum-ish rules in DnD. It necessarily does, because it's a rules based system that needs to define what is and what isn't allowed to happen. In fact, a better lightbulb analogy might be: Science: You flick the lightswitch to turn on the light because you are reasonably sure that it will make a complete circut and have electrons flow through a material with high enough resistivity to give off heat and light. Magic: You flick the lightswitch because such an action is considered good and proper by the gods, and they sometimes reward you with light when you do. That is, with magic you ask for things which may or may not be granted. With science you know what will work, and you know that if it doesn't then there's a good and knowable explaination for why. DnD "magic" follows the latter pattern.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-19, 04:47 PM
"Dear Tolkien-
You suck! Your magic doesn't follow Newtonian physics!"

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 04:49 PM
Actually, momentum is conserved in all interactions, no matter if the system is closed or not. If it wasn't then the universe would be rapidly loosing momentum and everything would stop, or gaining momenetum and everyone's atoms would jiggle out of control until they EXPLODE. (Okay, they might not actually explode, but bad stuff would go down. Gimmie a break, explosions are cool.)


The universe is the ultimate closed system.

The "in a closed system" criterion has to be added to any conservation law, because otherwise nothing is ever allowed to change ever.

When a ball bounces off of a wall, the ball changes momentum, and the wall doesn't, because it isn't a closed system. The wall is attached to the earth and that connects it to something outside our general "ball/wall" system.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 04:49 PM
"Dear Tolkien-
You suck! Your magic doesn't follow Newtonian physics!"

Or, for that matter, show up very much at all...

Druid
2007-01-19, 05:38 PM
The point of magic is that it doesn't work when physics are applied. That's why it's called magic.

CrazedGoblin
2007-01-19, 05:58 PM
Or, for that matter, show up very much at all...

yup, the most magic ive seen that showed effects was in the directors cut of film three. Where the Witch King actualy ignited his sword!!!!! which then broke gandalfs walking stick. but i don't think that happens in the book :P

Hannes
2007-01-19, 06:03 PM
I must point out one thing... Magic works with the laws of physics... Only that they're different.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 06:25 PM
I don't think that magic and physics can coexist. Why? Simple: the very purpose of magic is to, as our dear friend Vaarsuvius put it, "Tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down."

In that case, Magic and Physics have to coexist. After all, there has to be something to break.


Are you looking at them or are they watching you?.

Yes.

Dervag
2007-01-19, 09:17 PM
Magic can coexist with physics only if the DM is very very fast on his feet, and prepared to houserule.

Most high powers in D&D are in some way supernatural (in the sense that nobody living in a nonmagical world like ours could hope to duplicate them). This includes hit points (the ninth level fighter is more likely to survive a devastating sneak attack even when he gets ambushed coming out of the shower, which can only be explained if he has a supernatural gift for not getting hurt). It includes practically all spells and many feats. It includes many class abilities, too.

All that is OK as long as you accept some things that break our sense of how the universe works. The thing is that even though they defy our intuition, that doesn't mean they break the laws of physics. For instance, spells that create clouds of fog may be 'invoking' the water in the cloud rather than creating the water from pure energy (which would defy some conservation laws because matter has conserved properties other than energy). The same goes for most other spells. There are ways to explain them that don't break physics, but only if you accept things that break our sense of how the world works (like the ability to spontaneously move water from one point to another without having it pass through the intervening space).

averagejoe
2007-01-19, 10:03 PM
yup, the most magic ive seen that showed effects was in the directors cut of film three. Where the Witch King actualy ignited his sword!!!!! which then broke gandalfs walking stick. but i don't think that happens in the book :P

That didn't happen in the book, no, but even so, you should pay attention when you read it. It doesn't have flashy, scientific, well defined DnD magic, it has True magic.

Matthew
2007-01-20, 07:43 AM
Indeed. Plenty of magic in Tolkien and sometimes flashy.

random11
2007-01-21, 05:29 AM
That depends on the physics of the world.

If spells are words and gestures that are translated into a fireball, it makes no sense, but if the DM invented a good reason for it, there is no reason why it has to contradict physics.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-21, 06:37 AM
We have a panel of the learned and the wise here today to discuss an important question: Does magic obey the laws of physics?

Wizard: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic doesn't obey the laws of physics, it obeys the laws of magic, which require years of study and mystical experience to comprehend."

Cleric: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic does whatever My God The Most High says it can do, whose will is vast and boundless in scope and incomprehensible to us mortals."

Sorcerer: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic manifests when I impose my will upon the universe; it is limited only by the boundaries of my imagination and inner strength."

Bard: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic is governed by the the mortal soul. That which moves the heart - art, dance, poetry - is the most powerful force in the universe."

Druid: "Physics? Pshaw. Magic is the collective power of all living creatures, and pays no heed to such reductionist concepts as physics."

Gnomish Tinker: "Damn straight it does."
This deserves to be quoted.

zachol
2007-01-21, 07:04 AM
Hmm.

Alright, have we thought about gods yet?
I saw some mention of it earlier in the thread (something about a setting starting with "G"), but I think it needs to be considered a bit more.

We have some idea about how our universe was created.
Perhaps not the actual cause, but at least the process by which matter and even the laws of physics were created. It was, for the most part, logical and systemic.

However, a fantasy world that includes magic also usually includes deities, and at least some sort of "creator deity" that made everything.
Usually there's also a "magic deity" in there as well. Like Mystra, for example.

Is it not entirely possible that the god of magic is also the god of physics, or that the god of magic has an agreement with the original creator about physics?

I know this is deus ex machina, but "well... a god did it?" is at least something of an acceptable reason.
Especially if that god was around even before matter or time.
If the god of magic existed before existence itself, and time (and gravity, and all that) was around, then he's likely a bit more powerful than these laws of physics, and likely had influence in how things worked.

Dervag
2007-01-21, 07:09 AM
Where's the physics here?
Teleport can move you more than 2,000+ miles in an instant. Not even 0.000001 seconds - an instant. Sorry, but that's way faster than 186,282.4 miles per second.Relativity prohibits you from accelerating anything to a speed faster than light by pushing on it and speeding it up. It does not prohibit you from moving information faster than light, or from teleporting objects faster than light if they don't actually experience acceleration.


And then there's the whole issue of never actually passing through the intervening space - how does physics explain that?Well, we know it happens with fast-moving particles and small intervening spaces, because quantum tunneling is an observed fact. The idea that similar transfers could happen to large objects and long distances isn't fundamentally at odds with the laws of physics, though they would effectively never happen by chance.


divorcing it from a person's brain should obviously be impossible - and storing it into a piece of rock is ridiculous.Computers are just chemically doped silicon. It's not unimaginable that consciousness could be seated in a specially prepared 'rock' under the right conditions. Of course, modern physics doesn't offer even the slightest hint or semblance of a way in which it could actually be done, but it doesn't preclude it. Trapping souls doesn't violate the conservation laws or require any major physical forces to behave differently than they do in the normal universe, so it doesn't break any physical laws even if we can't imagine a way to make it happen using only those laws.


If your Lightning Bolt spell actually creates a "potential difference" between caster and target, then the spell would fry the caster as well, that's how electricity works. There would be a massive movement of electrons through the caster's body, which would kill them utterly.Only if the caster is dumb enough to make the starting point of high electrical potential at a point in contact with his body. This would place him inside the area of effect of the spell, which would normally fry him anyway.


If you start trying to explain D&D spellcasting in terms of sub-atomic physics, the lowest level cantrip becomes a source of city-destroying power. If a charcter can manipulate atoms with enough precision to conjure a powerful acid, or rearrange their facial features then by definition they have enough power to completely destroy anything that stands in their way. The same magic which allows you to conjure "corrosive ions" *must* allow you to rip somebody's body apart, atom by atom.What if you're pulling the corrosive ions from some place and moving them into position, rather than creating them? For example, in real life I have the power to introduce corrosive acid to any place I can physically reach by the simple expedient of carrying a beaker of acid to that place and pouring it out. That doesn't give me the power to disintegrate walls at will. Spells don't necessarily create matter; they can just as easily be described as 'teleporting' the necessary matter and energy in by manipulating some force or process.


I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I believe that one just has to accept that magic can create and destroy energy, breaking the golden rule of physics. That's the supernatural part of it, it's what makes it magic. So, shrunk boulder would have an appropriate amount of momentum added to it in midflight. If magic can create energy it can do that to.I've always thought that the energy and momentum have to come from somewhere. That somewhere may well be a 'sink' of energy sufficient to supply any imaginable need, though. For instance, it might be that every time someone casts a spell, the Earth's core gets a little cooler or the Earth slows down in its orbit by an unmeasurable fraction. Wizards could keep casting most spells for eons without causing much in the way of problems through this process, assuming that they have to draw matter and energy from elsewhere rather than creating it on the spot.


If Acid Splash grants you the power to summon corrostive ions from nowhere, it should also grant you the power to summon their respective anti-particles from nowhere (since in terms of physics, there's no real difference between the two) this allows you to use a level zero spell to create a matter-antimatter bomb.What if you aren't summoning them from nowhere? What if you're 'summoning' them by electrolyzing water that's already present (so as to generate hydrogen ions that have the effect of acid)? What if you're teleporting them from some other place? In short, what if the matter and massive energy releases involved in spells are coming from an outside force and being channeled to their target?


I just had another thought: What are the "laws of Physics" there are no laws of physics, just a bunch of theories that have never been proved wrong.Only by standards of 'not proven wrong' that stun the mind.

The basic theories physics uses to describe the universe, collectively called the Standard Model, are accurate to many decimal places. Everywhere we look, everywhere in the universe, our theories fit what's really happening to within one part in a billion or one part in a trillion. That means that our theories are damn good by any ordinary standard. Imagine if I could predict how much money you were going to spend next year or the number of footsteps you would take next year to that kind of accuracy. You'd think I was psychic.

If we ever come up with new theories to replace the old ones, they're going to look a LOT like the old ones in any kind of conditions that we actually see in most of the universe. This is because they have to explain all the same stuff. If I come up with a new theory of electricity, I still have to explain why light bulbs work at least as well as the old theory did. Since the old theory explains light bulbs perfectly, that's a pretty tough row to hoe.

The same thing goes for relativity and quantum mechanics. Those theories describe the universe so well that it's literally hard to imagine anything that would do a better job (which is why it's taking the physicists so long to invent a better system). And even after such a system is made, the makers still have to show that it reduces to the same old model for normal conditions, because we know that the old model works like a charm in those conditions.

So most of the findings of physics that people actually know about (like radioactivity, electricity, and the way stars work) aren't going to change much even if the physicists find new theories. The new theory can't be noticeably different from the old one for things that the old one already explains. Otherwise, it wouldn't work as a theory to explain light bulbs or car engines.


For example: Meld into Stone. This spell allows the caster to cooexist with a stone that is at least the same size as she is. This violates the law of physics a lot of us use everyday: "No two objects can coexist in the same space at the same time."Actually, that one's more of a guideline. It is possible for two objects to be superimposed into the same space under quantum mechanics, but only in special circumstances. So I can imagine a spell that somehow makes the interaction probability between your particles and the rock's particles utterly negligible. If that happened, you'd be able to walk through the rock like a ghost because your body wouldn't experience an interaction with it.

Of course, there's absolutely nothing in the rules of physics that tells us how such a thing might be done; but it doesn't actively break the laws of physics because you can still use the same equations to describe what happens as the character melds with the rock.


Well, that breaks the Law of Conservation of Mass.That one's more of a guideline too. For instance, if I take a rock and chip off pieces of it until it's a pile of gravel, I have not violated any conservation laws. In theory, I could chip off atoms of the rock until I had a smaller rock, and that wouldn't violate any conservation laws either as long as I found a place for the extra atoms.

That wouldn't work for living creatures, of course. But there are other ways. For example, the 'size' of subatomic particles is governed by certain physical constants. If you could twiddle the constants in the area you occupy, then you would be able to enlarge or shrink the particles in your body. I'm not sure it would work the D&D enlarge and shrink spells work, but it would provide something of an explanation for it.

Athenodorus
2007-01-21, 11:14 AM
I think we may be disagreeing on the nature of the question. If it is "Does Magic follow the laws of physics as we currently understand them?" my answer would be no. However...

While the "It's just a theory omg!!1" argument is lame, our understanding of physics has changed in several rather large stages over the past 400 years or so. What would someone in Newton's day have said about non-absolute time?

the_tick_rules
2007-01-21, 12:07 PM
well it depends on how you define following physics. a person shooting a fireball that is 10x the intensity of normal flame is possible in that it is conceivable under extreme, but not impossible, circumstances. while something like being both single and married is impossible.

oriong
2007-01-21, 01:32 PM
That one's more of a guideline too. For instance, if I take a rock and chip off pieces of it until it's a pile of gravel, I have not violated any conservation laws. In theory, I could chip off atoms of the rock until I had a smaller rock, and that wouldn't violate any conservation laws either as long as I found a place for the extra atoms.

That wouldn't work for living creatures, of course. But there are other ways. For example, the 'size' of subatomic particles is governed by certain physical constants. If you could twiddle the constants in the area you occupy, then you would be able to enlarge or shrink the particles in your body. I'm not sure it would work the D&D enlarge and shrink spells work, but it would provide something of an explanation for it.

I have no clue why you say it's a 'guideline', it's pretty darn fundamental. And the 'rock chipping' example just illustrates that. You have the same mass in a large rock or a pile of gravel. However, it doesn't really work with Enlarge/Shrink (first of all because Enlarge happens in reverse). Also, we know neither spell involves moving mass from elsewhere, or hiding it anywhere. They're Transmutation spells, not conjuration. Transmutation spells change the object to be transmuted. Roughly the only possible explanation is extra mass converted to energy and vice versa.

The Shrink spell is actually physically impossible. If shrink works by very selectively taking away atoms until you have a smaller person then that small person would be stupider in addition to smaller: you've reduced their brain size by a sizable percentage and probably destroyed (at least temporarily) a good deal of their memories. If you somehow 'shrunk' the atoms themselves then the person would be unable to process air, since the new oxygen atoms are now much bigger than their cells are designed to handle, you'd probably have subatomic problems like losing lots of electrons from atoms and possibly even unstable nuclei leading to the guy's own atomic structure ripping itself apart.

And if you twiddle the physical constants in an area what you end up with is a very, very, very dead person a lot easier than you end up with a bigger or smaller person. If you just very slightly adjust (by as little as 1%) some constants you end up making Carbon (the thing that makes organic beings...well, organic) impossible, turning whatever you're manipulating into a puddle of goo.

This is ultimately the problem trying to match physics to D+D magic:internal consistancy. D+D's internal consistency is based on game balance (a third level spell does less damage than a similar 5th level spell, etc.), not on consistent uses of energy, complexity, or mass.

For example, let's take Enlarge/Shrink: logically, anything that would allow you to manipulate the structure of a creature (and it's equipment) in such a manner should allow you to kill them in an instant much, much easier and with much much less effort, heck, it should be easier to Disentigrate someone than to make them smaller. And like the example with Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud. One of them just sits there and is a cloud, the other is mobile (requiring energy) and follows a specific course (wherever the caster moves, requiring added complexity of manipulation) but the second is the lower-level spell because it is less useful by game balance.

Spells that summon stuff from somewhere else have the same issue: mass is ignored, so is pretty much any other value other than 'relative usefulness'. It's somehow easier to summon/create 'non-living vegetable matter' even though it's exceedingly more complex than say iron. Heck, it's even harder to summon gold than it is to summon iron because gold is so much more useful to the player.

Jorkens
2007-01-21, 02:17 PM
I think we may be disagreeing on the nature of the question. If it is "Does Magic follow the laws of physics as we currently understand them?" my answer would be no. However...
An off the cuff definition of a physical theory is something that attempts to explain and predict how measurable physical phenomena behave. Since the disappearance of some bat guano and the appearance of a big fireball in the middle of the room are both measureable physical phenomena, physicists in a fantasy world would want their theories to explain how and why these things work.

If the answer is that "the wizard bends the laws of physics", the physicists would then try to theorize how and why the wizard is capable of bending the laws of physics - in other words to turn what they're doing into taking advantage of an exception that's included in the new version of the laws of physics, rather than flat out breaking the older and simpler version of the laws.

Obviously the 'laws of physics' that these physicists came up with would differ noticeably from the ones that real world physicists have come up with, and the physicists themselves would be indistinguishable from magicians.

In other words, the distinction between "physics" and "magic" that we draw in a fantasy world seems to be a distinction from a real world point of view between "fantasy physics that resembles real world physics" and "fantasy physics that is apparently incompatible with real world physics." From a fantasy world perspective, the distinction makes no sense.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 09:16 AM
Only if the caster is dumb enough to make the starting point of high electrical potential at a point in contact with his body. This would place him inside the area of effect of the spell, which would normally fry him anyway.

No.

To create a "potential difference" you need to create a potential. That potential will then earth itself wherever is convenient. This may be the target, it's more likely to be something closer.


What if you're pulling the corrosive ions from some place and moving them into position, rather than creating them? For example, in real life I have the power to introduce corrosive acid to any place I can physically reach by the simple expedient of carrying a beaker of acid to that place and pouring it out. That doesn't give me the power to disintegrate walls at will. Spells don't necessarily create matter; they can just as easily be described as 'teleporting' the necessary matter and energy in by manipulating some force or process.

Okay, let's take your "carrying a beaker of acid" example.

Your "spell" relies on you having the ability to carry objects and throw them at your target. In this case "a beaker of acid" is a good choice "a hand grenade" is a better choice. Now suppose you invent a machine that allows you to teleport the acid from a short distance away and onto your target, why bother using acid when you can teleport a chair leg into his gut?

Now take the "those ions are teleported in from somewhere else" theory. In that case you've got small-scale local teleportation. Instead of faffing about with acid, teleport your victim's windpipe three feet to the left.

Or it works by electrolysing water? So in other words you have the power to ionise matter at will? Great, just do that to your targets brain and kill them instantly.

The moment you develop a scientific of pseudoscientific explaination for the way a D&D spell works, the same mechanism that powers your spell allows you to kill anybody instantly. Always. Because the things that low level spells do should be *very, very difficult*.


I've always thought that the energy and momentum have to come from somewhere. That somewhere may well be a 'sink' of energy sufficient to supply any imaginable need, though. For instance, it might be that every time someone casts a spell, the Earth's core gets a little cooler or the Earth slows down in its orbit by an unmeasurable fraction. Wizards could keep casting most spells for eons without causing much in the way of problems through this process, assuming that they have to draw matter and energy from elsewhere rather than creating it on the spot.

Even so, if you have the power to move matter and energy around at will, you can kill anybody instantly, with a thought.


What if you aren't summoning them from nowhere? What if you're 'summoning' them by electrolyzing water that's already present (so as to generate hydrogen ions that have the effect of acid)? What if you're teleporting them from some other place? In short, what if the matter and massive energy releases involved in spells are coming from an outside force and being channeled to their target?

Then you can use all of those techniques directly on somebody's brain, and kill them utterly in a heartbeat.

In physics, doing things in a slow controlled manner is always harder than doing things in a quick destructive manner.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 09:26 AM
In a rules based RPG the rules are the physics.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 05:18 PM
Would a true scientist not believe in any magic? (Even if he can't explain something, he has faith that eventually science will be able to?)

A true scientist? No. IRL, "magic" is metaphysical schlock. So far, there's nothing that breaks the laws of nature, because... well, if something exists, laws of nature govern it.


Relativity prohibits you from accelerating anything to a speed faster than light by pushing on it and speeding it up. It does not prohibit you from moving information faster than light, or from teleporting objects faster than light if they don't actually experience acceleration.

Well, we know it happens with fast-moving particles and small intervening spaces, because quantum tunneling is an observed fact. The idea that similar transfers could happen to large objects and long distances isn't fundamentally at odds with the laws of physics, though they would effectively never happen by chance.

Computers are just chemically doped silicon. It's not unimaginable that consciousness could be seated in a specially prepared 'rock' under the right conditions. Of course, modern physics doesn't offer even the slightest hint or semblance of a way in which it could actually be done, but it doesn't preclude it. Trapping souls doesn't violate the conservation laws or require any major physical forces to behave differently than they do in the normal universe, so it doesn't break any physical laws even if we can't imagine a way to make it happen using only those laws.

Great answers, but this leaves the fundamental problem of "By what mechanism can this happen?" How can you wave your hands and mutter some words and cause a brain (which isn't a soul; D&D souls are separate entities completely at odds with modern science as far as I can tell, since "soul" is a metaphysical concept and therefore beyond proof) to be imprinted into silicon? And Dan Hemmens has gone into great detail about the silliness we'd get even from low-level spells if they did, indeed, have physical explanations.

And even then, we're in the area of "It's not theoretically entirely impossible," which is mostly "soft SF" - "Well, we've got this way of causing quantum tunneling where you turn into particles that somehow know how to reassemble into you thousands of miles away..." The effects of D&D magic are the kind of thing you see in Star Trek or Star Wars, both of which are the sort of fantasy that gleefully ignores reality. Postulating nonexistent mechanisms that allow these "superscience" or "magic" (same thing, really) effects is not staying within the bounds of the "laws of nature" or "laws of physics" - it's just a bunch of "Well, maybe it would work like this..."

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 06:25 PM
I'd say there is some (artificial) intelligent almost omnipotent entity behind the scenes which makes the magic happen according to a set of almost arbitrary and predetermined rules ... the rules for magic are too inconsistent for them to arise in any other way.

Heh, if I lived in D&D I'd be a magic creationist ;)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 06:33 PM
In a rules based RPG the rules are the physics.

Except that's rules, not physics. If the game rules really were the "physics of the gameworld" the most sought-after material for armour would be the near impervious skin of a high-level fighter.

Indon
2007-01-23, 06:39 PM
Except that's rules, not physics. If the game rules really were the "physics of the gameworld" the most sought-after material for armour would be the near impervious skin of a high-level fighter.

I think you're confusing toughness (material damage reduction), material hit points, organic hit points, and armor class.

Armor class is dependent on the type of armor and the quality of its' construction. Not many metals actually make this better.

I'd say high-level fighter skin armor would be about as good as regular wood armor; maybe worse. You can't even sunder armor, so the armor having lots of HP matters little.

Upside, it should be pretty waterproof. Unless it's chain-fighter-skin-mail, of course.

On the other hand, building a weapon using the soul of a high-level monk (Ki Strike:Magic,Lawful,Adamantine) seems like an interesting idea...

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 06:44 PM
What about the fighter who gets hit with a maximized 20d6 fireball and survives. How do you explain that when another fireball kills a commer, but deals 1d6. Or even better, the rogues evasion ability in an enclose space. Wizards of the coast says he can still evade it.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 06:45 PM
Except that's rules, not physics. If the game rules really were the "physics of the gameworld" the most sought-after material for armour would be the near impervious skin of a high-level fighter.
No, because you don't gain anything from wearing the skin of a high level fighter anymore than you gain a monster's NA by wearing it's skin ... you are trying extrapolate rules based on intuitive reasoning of how the world should work, but your intuition doesn't determine how the world works. The DM does ;)

Even in the real world intuition is a poor guide, for instance I just learned that it's possible to capture and project an image with only a single photon the other day (if you are a quantum physicist that might not come as a surprise, but I certainly didn't expect that).

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 06:46 PM
I think you're confusing toughness (material damage reduction), material hit points, organic hit points, and armor class.

On the contrary, what I'm saying is the following:

Firstly, it is impossible for a high level fighter to be killed by a sword blow. This strongly implies that fighterskin is a special material impervious to swords. You can therefore make armour from it which is light, flexible, and impervious to sword-blows.

Which is the difference between physics and game mechanics. Physics is consistent, game mechanics aren't.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 06:51 PM
This strongly implies that fighterskin is a special material impervious to swords. You can therefore make armour from it which is light, flexible, and impervious to sword-blows.
You jump from supposition to fact there. It might strongly imply it's a special material, yet if you actually wear his skin you will find that you were wrong ... time for a new theory :)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-23, 06:52 PM
You jump from supposition to fact there.

This is true, and I am being flippant. My point is that the moment you work out the "in-character" rationale behind a game-mechanical abstraction, the moment you codify it as a "law of physics" the game world starts to get very, very silly.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-23, 07:13 PM
This is true, and I am being flippant. My point is that the moment you work out the "in-character" rationale behind a game-mechanical abstraction, the moment you codify it as a "law of physics" the game world starts to get very, very silly.

And gods start to kill catgirls.

Desaril
2007-01-23, 07:22 PM
Magic can work in conjunction with physics. There is a pseudo-scientific maxim that says:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The notion is that often technology appears to be magic, but works in accordance with reliably predicatable results. We usually don't really understand why our cell phones work, but they do (nearly) everytime we hit SEND. As far as I'm concerned it's as unexplainable as helicoptors or Star Trek transporters. Or a wizard's fireball.

Even if (all) magic does not follow physics, magic could allow the bending of physics in a reliably predictable manner. That would make it virtually identical to what we call science.

Pronounceable
2007-01-23, 07:43 PM
I love the smell of rotting catgirl carcasses in the morning...

In an internally consistent universe with what we call magic, the "laws by which the universe works" (what we call "laws of physics") would include such phenomena. There'll be proven facts such as "Tenser Effect", "Law of Mental Domination", "Conservation of Power Words", "Soul-Necromancy Interferance", etc.

So: if magic existed within what we call "laws of magic", it WOULD be consistent with physics. Physics would include magic by definition.

If the universe is not internally consistent, there'll be no "laws by which the universe works". And all bets are off.

I appreciate the killing of catgirls. Carry on...

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-23, 07:54 PM
Well, yes. But then we can at least agree that this means a fantasy world's physics are so alien to Earth physics that you can't apply much Newton to it.

Indon
2007-01-23, 08:25 PM
In an internally consistent universe with what we call magic, the "laws by which the universe works" (what we call "laws of physics") would include such phenomena. There'll be proven facts such as "Tenser Effect", "Law of Mental Domination", "Conservation of Power Words", "Soul-Necromancy Interferance", etc.


I like this concept and I think I will apply it if I can to my next campaign.

Dark
2007-01-23, 08:27 PM
Except that's rules, not physics. If the game rules really were the "physics of the gameworld" the most sought-after material for armour would be the near impervious skin of a high-level fighter.
No, it wouldn't be, because then the game rules would govern the process of making armor, and there are no rules for making it out of fighter-skin.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-01-24, 11:08 AM
Okay, this is just the humble opinion of a young person, but my definition of physics is: Rules that tell the universe what to do. Imagine you are the universe. Your boss is now the laws of physics. My definition of magic is: Telling the universe what to do in such a way that it cannot ignore that is contrary to the laws of physics. Now imagine that your boss has told you to do something, but you are tired, so you go to sleep. Your tiredness, which was telling you to go to sleep is now a mage. But things get even better: Your boss (Physics) may tell you (The universe) to do something, but leaves it up to you to decide on how to do it. Which accounts for the variances in quantum theory that end up with the same result anyway.

Our universe is the employee of the month- listens to everything the boss says, to the letter, and once s/he has done that s/he goes back for more stuff to do. The D&D universe, however, is much more impulsive- s/he lets internal things like tiredness, hunger and laziness effect what s/he does.

By the way, this post has given me a really good idea for a campaign (the laws of physics are set by a sentient being- a mage commands/persuades him to let the mage do a spell, while clerics worship him so that he gives them a bit more leeway than your average person.)

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 11:21 AM
*Egging Shazzbaa on* So guys how would Time Stop work under the laws of physics?

Time, as an entity, may or may not exist. We perceive and measure time in terms of change. The change of the earth's position around the sun, the change of the sun's position in the sky, the changes in ourselves, the change of particles' positions within an atom. If these changes stopped happening, how would we know that time was passing? In my mind, Time stop works by stopping all change outside the caster.

Jorkens
2007-01-24, 11:27 AM
Okay, this is just the humble opinion of a young person, but my definition of physics is: Rules that tell the universe what to do. Imagine you are the universe. Your boss is now the laws of physics. My definition of magic is: Telling the universe what to do in such a way that it cannot ignore that is contrary to the laws of physics.
But a physicist in such a world would want to come up with better laws of physics such that magic is a special case of them, and to explain what people can cause to happen and why. Essentially, the rules of physics are meant to explain everything measurable, so if there are examples of measurable things that break them then they're not good enough and need improving.

So if all the laws of physics you've got are gravity and newtonian dynamics, then a magnet will appear to be magic because it attracts objects in a way that's completely inconsistant with the physical laws as you understand them. But rather than say 'that's alright because magnets aren't physics so they're allowed to break the laws of physics', you start looking for new physical laws that explain and describe how magnets behave, ie the science of magnetism. Likewise, if someone showed up who could consistantly conjure fireballs from bat guano under lab conditions, you wouldn't ignore it as being magic and therefore allowed to break the laws of physics but rather you'd start trying to extend the laws of physics to explain and describe what this person can do...

oriong
2007-01-24, 02:21 PM
Time, as an entity, may or may not exist. We perceive and measure time in terms of change. The change of the earth's position around the sun, the change of the sun's position in the sky, the changes in ourselves, the change of particles' positions within an atom. If these changes stopped happening, how would we know that time was passing? In my mind, Time stop works by stopping all change outside the caster.

Except that if that happened then the caster wouldn't be able to do much. Like breath for one thing seeing as all those molecules that you suck in aren't changing: i.e. not moving. So, no air for you. Couldn't move either, seeing as the air isn't moving, therefore it isn't fluid anymore. Therefore it's more or less a solid wall (or more accurately a field of incredibly, immobile needles). That combined with the fact that the caster is moving around the earth like everything else, the earth suddenly stops and he'll be flung forward, of course the air around him is now immobile and solid so the caster will, in effect, be ripped to shreds on all the oxygen molecules around him.

And not to mention it violates inertia. In order to stop all 'change' outside of the caster you need to instantly cease all motion and energetic processes. And what's more, when the spell ends you'd need to renew them. So...if this spell has the power to instantly counter the net kinetic energy of the entire universe and then restart it (including the rotation of the earth, sun, moon, every living thing, etc.) then why does Meteor Swarm only do 32d6 damage at most?

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 02:39 PM
Except that if that happened then the caster wouldn't be able to do much. Like breath for one thing seeing as all those molecules that you suck in aren't changing: i.e. not moving. So, no air for you. Couldn't move either, seeing as the air isn't moving, therefore it isn't fluid anymore. Therefore it's more or less a solid wall (or more accurately a field of incredibly, immobile needles). That combined with the fact that the caster is moving around the earth like everything else, the earth suddenly stops and he'll be flung forward, of course the air around him is now immobile and solid so the caster will, in effect, be ripped to shreds on all the oxygen molecules around him.

And not to mention it violates inertia. In order to stop all 'change' outside of the caster you need to instantly cease all motion and energetic processes. And what's more, when the spell ends you'd need to renew them. So...if this spell has the power to instantly counter the net kinetic energy of the entire universe and then restart it (including the rotation of the earth, sun, moon, every living thing, etc.) then why does Meteor Swarm only do 32d6 damage at most?

All very good points. And I doubt I could come up with suitable counterarguments to most of those. Except, of course, that it's magic. But clearly I didn't take as much time as I should have taken to answer the question.

Here's my take on the whole thing - magic, pretty much by definition, is something outside our understanding of how the world works. I tend to view it as violating, in very specific ways, the fundamental laws of physics - mostly the ones dealing with energy remaining constant. If energy doesn't have to remain constant, you can do just about anything. But, once the spell is cast, it interacts with the world according to the laws of physics. A fireball spell, for instance, violates the laws of physics once, to come into existance. Then it explodes and dissipates according to accepted thermodynamics. At least in my mind. And I'm sure there are spells that this doesn't apply to either. In conclusion, I'm wrong.

Alternately, D&D works according to cartoon physics - gravity only applies if you look down. Wizards, rather than being smart, are very, very stupid, so they don't realize how impossible magic is.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-24, 04:27 PM
Alternately, D&D works according to cartoon physics - gravity only applies if you look down. Wizards, rather than being smart, are very, very stupid, so they don't realize how impossible magic is.

Should we make a "Skeptic" class that realizes how utterly impossible magic is and thus has the power to dispel it by explaining it away?

BlueWizard
2007-01-24, 04:37 PM
I would say most, but not all! Certain ones outright defy physics! But, you can use physics to create the desired effect, some sort of force helping FLY, sulfer ignited explodes, fireball... ect...

Golthur
2007-01-24, 04:43 PM
Should we make a "Skeptic" class that realizes how utterly impossible magic is and thus has the power to dispel it by explaining it away?
I vaguely remember something like that being a character "class" in some horror game I played in the dawn of time - maybe Chill?

Anyway, you were mostly immune to supernatural abilities (but could never aquire them yourself) because you just didn't believe in them.

It was somewhat cool, actually :smile:. "That wasn't a werewolf, it was just some guy from the furry convention".

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 07:09 PM
I can't really wrap my mind around the fluff for the skeptic class. I mean, everybody knows magic exists. Even if it's utterly impossible, the guy over there with the bat guano doesn't know that. And refusing to believe that you're burning only goes so far.

Overall, it seems like the idea of wizards being too stupid to realize magic is impossible would be better as the premise for a humorous (and poorly-written, if I have anything to do with it) fantasy novel than as something to try to incorporate into D&D. To me, at least, it has a vaguely Discworld-esque feel to it.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-24, 09:03 PM
Magic can usually be reconciled with physics if you're willing to houserule a couple things and spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. DnD treats magic as a universal law, some sort of ephemeral energy out there, as much so as inertia, force, gravity, and momentum. Just as most people don't know the intricate workings of physics and chemistry well enough to design a workable spaceship, most people in DnD don't understand magic well enough to produce an effective meteor swarm.

There is one big difference however... I think it's pointed out in the complete Arcane... between science and magic. Science can be reproduced by anyone who's doing the same thing as someone else. If Joe can build a house, Bob can build one if he does the same things Joe did. Magic requires there to be some special property in the character - a trait all PC's have as even non-casters can multiclass caster. Thus, just because Joe can cast Magic Missile doesn't mean Bob can even if Bob mirrors Joe's movements precisely. However, even this can be explained if you just rule that it's genetic or some such. Like how some people can smell cyanide while others can't or how some people are colorblind or predisposed towards certain cancers.

The idea that physics and magic can't be reconciled is an artifact of the experience of most PCs - you spend the majority of your time using magic to overcome the laws of physics. You do this whenever you cast any kind of spell but divination, abjuration, and sometimes enchantment. What people don't realize is that physics and magic can work quite harmoniously. I think I used fluid dynamics to design a heavier-than-air airship with a ridiculous speed one time, powered by nothing but permanent gust of wind spells.

oriong
2007-01-24, 11:37 PM
Magic can usually be reconciled with physics if you're willing to houserule a couple things and spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. DnD treats magic as a universal law, some sort of ephemeral energy out there, as much so as inertia, force, gravity, and momentum. Just as most people don't know the intricate workings of physics and chemistry well enough to design a workable spaceship, most people in DnD don't understand magic well enough to produce an effective meteor swarm.

Not really. None of the stuff you pointed out does anything to say that magic and physics can be integrated. It just comes down to saying that it represents some sort of energy/force that has no known rules, no consistency, and no reasonable interaction with normal physics. That's not reconciliation at all.

Now, can you use magic and physics together in some way? (such as your airship example). Sure. You cast a spell that creates heat and it sets something on fire. That's physics in action. You use a spell to make wind and the force causes other objects to move. That's physics in action. But the activity that causes all of these effects does not have anything at all to do with real-world physics, and it's not consistent enough to even be 'fantasy' physics.

Hallavast
2007-01-25, 12:02 AM
For The Love Of Bob! Make A Third Poll Option!

dungeon_munky
2007-01-25, 01:19 AM
Because I am wearing a jade circlet of at least 1500 gp value (the price is important) I am now able to change into any creature I am familiar with (note I dont need to know much about this creature, just be familiar with it. Although I have rearranged my organs, I dont need to know what i made them into.) And I can do this because of the small symbiotes living in my cells that let me do anything. It's physics at its finest.

I have little problems with using the energy in guano to make things go boom, or bending space so there isnt space between it. Im just a grade 12 physics student, I know about circular motion, but not this.
But then they impose the antimagic field. That place where they deny the laws of magic. Or, as you say, the laws of physics. But not all the laws of physics, only the ones that do not exist in our current understanding. Someone explain to me how a certain aspect of physics can deny other aspects of physics but not the ones we know about and can explain easily. Which brings up another point...If this is possible, then should there not also be something along the lines of an anti-nonmagic field, in which only the magical physics apply?

averagejoe
2007-01-25, 02:41 AM
But, once the spell is cast, it interacts with the world according to the laws of physics. A fireball spell, for instance, violates the laws of physics once, to come into existance. Then it explodes and dissipates according to accepted thermodynamics.

Actually, it continues to violate the laws of thermodynamics after it explodes. See, the spell can't light stuff on fire so, in other words, it somehow affects only the living tissue of anything that can fight (essentially).

oriong
2007-01-25, 02:47 AM
Fireball can light stuff on fire. Actually it says it right there in the description of the spell.

"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze."

Now, it does defy them in other ways, since it is very simplified. It doesn't create pressure, or disturb the air significantly for instance.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 06:09 AM
Magic can work in conjunction with physics. There is a pseudo-scientific maxim that says:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The notion is that often technology appears to be magic, but works in accordance with reliably predicatable results. We usually don't really understand why our cell phones work, but they do (nearly) everytime we hit SEND. As far as I'm concerned it's as unexplainable as helicoptors or Star Trek transporters. Or a wizard's fireball.

Even if (all) magic does not follow physics, magic could allow the bending of physics in a reliably predictable manner. That would make it virtually identical to what we call science.

I touched on this already, I think.

The point of the statement is that it appears like magic to someone who doesn't know what's going on. An engineer or electrician or telecom expert won't think there's anything magical about a cell phone, but for you, it might as well be magic, because you have no clue what's going on. "Well, there's like... waves, and these towers... uh..."

When we speak of magic in fantasy and RPGs, it's an entirely different thing. It's actual magic. It's dragons and balls of flame appearing out of nowhere.

Dark
2007-01-25, 07:38 AM
I'm not sure this is on topic, but I've always liked Benford's Corollary :)

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"

mikeejimbo
2007-01-25, 07:56 AM
I vaguely remember something like that being a character "class" in some horror game I played in the dawn of time - maybe Chill?

Anyway, you were mostly immune to supernatural abilities (but could never aquire them yourself) because you just didn't believe in them.

It was somewhat cool, actually :smile:. "That wasn't a werewolf, it was just some guy from the furry convention".

This reminds me of the "Mundane" advantage from GURPS IOU. At least, I think it was an advantage, because it prevented any seemingly impossible things from happening around it. It covered everything from magic, to psionics, to things beyond TL7.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-25, 08:19 AM
In an internally consistent universe with what we call magic, the "laws by which the universe works" (what we call "laws of physics") would include such phenomena. There'll be proven facts such as "Tenser Effect", "Law of Mental Domination", "Conservation of Power Words", "Soul-Necromancy Interferance", etc.

So: if magic existed within what we call "laws of magic", it WOULD be consistent with physics. Physics would include magic by definition.


Untrue for a number of reasons.

Firstly "laws" and "laws of physics" are not the same thing. There is no physical law dictating that a sonnet has to have fourteen lines.

Secondly, in any world in which magic worked along pseudoscientific lines, it would look completely unlike magic.

Magic can only be explained in terms of scientific laws and technological devices if those laws and devices were deliberately designed to replicate magic.

If you have the ability to rearrange matter at will, there is no reason to restrict yourself to conjuring tiny blobs of acid.

Jorkens
2007-01-25, 10:37 AM
Untrue for a number of reasons.

Firstly "laws" and "laws of physics" are not the same thing. There is no physical law dictating that a sonnet has to have fourteen lines.
Indeed. But Wikipdia defines a physical law to be a scientific generalisation based on the empirical observation of physical phenomena, and while you can't really view sonnets as physical phenomena, viewing fireballs or people flying as physical phenomena seems quite reasonable.


Secondly, in any world in which magic worked along pseudoscientific lines, it would look completely unlike magic.

Magic can only be explained in terms of scientific laws and technological devices if those laws and devices were deliberately designed to replicate magic.
Yes. Exactly. Falling objects can only be explained in terms of scientific laws if the laws are deliberately designed to replicate falling objects. I don't see how this is a fundamental problem - if the physical world behaves in a strange and inconsistent way with no simple underlying explanation, then your laws of science are going to have to do the same. You may not end up with very elegant laws of physics, or laws of physics that resemble the ones in our world, you may not consider the things that you get out at the end to be useful enough to be worth the effort, but you do have laws of physics.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 10:47 AM
This reminds me of the "Mundane" advantage from GURPS IOU. At least, I think it was an advantage, because it prevented any seemingly impossible things from happening around it. It covered everything from magic, to psionics, to things beyond TL7.
IIRC, I think people who had that particular ability (in the game I played, not GURPS) were actually (in truth) psychic, but their disbelief was so strong, they used their psychic abilities automatically to suppress all psychic and supernatural phenomena around them.

Mind you, it's been a very, very long while since I played whatever game it was. I won't embarrass myself by saying exactly how long ago it was...

elliott20
2007-01-25, 12:07 PM
this thread is like a plague on catgirls.

oriong
2007-01-25, 12:09 PM
Not really psychic (although they were supposed to have some unnamed supernatural ability that they used unconciously) since the highest level of Mundane could turn a demon into a guy in a rubber suit without even realizing what happened.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-25, 12:40 PM
Not really psychic (although they were supposed to have some unnamed supernatural ability that they used unconciously) since the highest level of Mundane could turn a demon into a guy in a rubber suit without even realizing what happened.

Bear in mind he's talking about a different game here. GURPS IOU is just silly.

Azrael
2007-01-25, 12:44 PM
Wow six pages of real world physics and magic.

Sure ... it's been said, but it hasn't been said right:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/jtoppan/physicscatgirl.jpg

oriong
2007-01-25, 01:16 PM
Bear in mind he's talking about a different game here. GURPS IOU is just silly.

Right, IOU doesn't make any attempt at reason or sanity.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-25, 01:19 PM
Not really. None of the stuff you pointed out does anything to say that magic and physics can be integrated. It just comes down to saying that it represents some sort of energy/force that has no known rules, no consistency, and no reasonable interaction with normal physics. That's not reconciliation at all.

Now, can you use magic and physics together in some way? (such as your airship example). Sure. You cast a spell that creates heat and it sets something on fire. That's physics in action. You use a spell to make wind and the force causes other objects to move. That's physics in action. But the activity that causes all of these effects does not have anything at all to do with real-world physics, and it's not consistent enough to even be 'fantasy' physics.

Who says magic has no consistency? Every time a level 5 wizard casts magic missile, it comes out as the same magic missile. It's not any different from wizard to wizard to sorcerer to some monkey with a wand of magic missile (5). It only changes by level - by a set system.

Add to that the fact that casting the spells involves a set system of laws and rules. Most spells require motion and words to cast. Every spell that produces a "cone of cold" requires the same words and motions to cast. Ok, so now the question "why?" We can't answer that about our own laws of physics. We can measure, create formulas, calculations, and laws involving, relate to mass, and experience inertia but there's no one alive who can answer why it exists. Nor can we definitively state how the universe is created or which gene causes the first cell division.

If that doesn't convince you, then try this: magic can integrate with physics if the DM says it does. No, really. As long as it's plausible it's possible. He can blame it on anything: radiation, undiscovered elements, something in the air/water/food, or any combination thereof. The possibilities are limited only in the DM's mind.

Ex.: Now, there's a type of energy in the area around us, it can be atmosphere based or not, like gas or magnetism. Now, the motions of your hands combined with the precise sonic frequencies of the words you utter manipulate the energy, which is tangible enough to be moved by your hands but undetectable because the nervous systems of humans/elves/etc. can't detect it, to create the spell effect. Only if it's precise, now - thus a botched spell could produce any effect or no effect at all. Also, the frequencies (words) used almost always come out like gobbledegook, so normal speech will never spontaneously generate fireball. Now for metamagic: as it turns out, the sequences most run through while casting a spell are something like overkill, the firing of the synapses in your brain is sufficient (concentration) but incredibly difficult (also, it's required that you do this ahead of time, (rest to prepare spells) which will anchor most of the effect to you, because when the reaction is begun the magic gravitates to that person who started it), thus you can generate the same effect at faster speeds (quicken) or without the words (silent) or motions (stilled). It can go on from there. There. Magic is now governed by laws of physics and chemisty. It's not my fault that the little citizens of DnD can't measure the magical energy in the air and reduce it to mathematical formulae, or can they? (Geometer). Oh, and I houserule in that anyone who performs the actions correctly can cast spells, or that a machine could theoretically produce them, which is what the rules of multiclassing suggest anyway. What's more, chemicals in the air or such can alter the spells, but that's rarely an issue in DnD. And, since physics is causing magic, catastrophic or powerful events can cause changes in the magic, so things like stars going nova or comets passing nearby really can produce odd effects like, say, boosting divination.

And that's just one way to do it.

Setting something on fire is chemistry in action more so than physics. :P

oriong
2007-01-25, 01:49 PM
Who says magic has no consistency? Every time a level 5 wizard casts magic missile, it comes out as the same magic missile. It's not any different from wizard to wizard to sorcerer to some monkey with a wand of magic missile (5). It only changes by level - by a set system.

Add to that the fact that casting the spells involves a set system of laws and rules. Most spells require motion and words to cast. Every spell that produces a "cone of cold" requires the same words and motions to cast. Ok, so now the question "why?" We can't answer that about our own laws of physics. We can measure, create formulas, calculations, and laws involving, relate to mass, and experience inertia but there's no one alive who can answer why it exists. Nor can we definitively state how the universe is created or which gene causes the first cell division.

That's not what I mean.

Magic has no internal consistency within itself. The effects of one spell of a certain level are often drastically out of tune (in terms of energy required and complexity) with spells of the same level, or those of higher levels. Some examples:

Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud. They both produce the exact same volume of fog, with the same in-game effects. Except one is mobile the other is immobile. The mobile one clearly is more complex and requires more energy, however it is lower level because it is less effective in terms of game balance.

Summon Monster spells: there is no rhyme or reason to what you can summon beyond their effectiveness in combat. The actual difficulty in summoning them (i.e. the spell's level) is not in any way related to mass, intelligence of the creature, saving throws, planar location, SR, or anything of the sort. There is no reason why it's easier to summon a Baleen Whale (a gargantuan 12 HD creature) than a Hellcat (a Large 8 HD creature) or why a hellcat is just as easy to summon as a Collossal Monstrous Centipede (a 24 HD collossal creature) but a barbed devil (a 12 HD, Medium creature). It's all just based on CR (i.e. game balance concerns), and even then it's not very consistent.

Creation Spells: It is much easier to create wood (which is much more chemically complex) than iron, and it is more difficult to create gold or silver than iron or steel.

The energy needed to both create an Earthquake effect and contain it within a small areas is many, many times vaster than the relative energy released in any destructive spell (fireball, DBF, or Meteor Swarm for example).



If that doesn't convince you, then try this: magic can integrate with physics if the DM says it does. No, really. As long as it's plausible it's possible. He can blame it on anything: radiation, undiscovered elements, something in the air/water/food, or any combination thereof. The possibilities are limited only in the DM's mind.

My own emphasis added.

Yes, the DM can claim whatever he wants, but the more explanation you attempt the greater number of holes there will be in it. All of the examples you give do absolutely nothing to integrate magic with physics, it's no more plausible than saying 'invisible angels did it when you ask them politely'. The DM is free to come up with his own pseudo science explanation if he feels the need but it just makes it even less believable because it is inevitably horrible, horrible science. It's better to leave the mechanics undefined than trying to tack on a shoddy explanation.



Setting something on fire is chemistry in action more so than physics. :P

"In science there is only physics. Everything else is stamp collecting"

All chemistry is physics I'm afraid, it's just treated as a seperate discipline for simplicity, but all actions and reactions within the universe fall under physics.

Athenodorus
2007-01-25, 02:28 PM
By that logic, there are only two sciences: Pure and Applied Mathematics. ;)

oriong
2007-01-25, 02:31 PM
No, not really.

Science is the use of observed phenomena to predict the results of future actions. Mathematics is the langauge used to express this. It's certainly essential to modern physics (and all science for that matter) but it is not, on it's own, the 'only' science.

EDIT: obviously I'm talking about physical sciences here.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 03:26 PM
Summon Monster spells: there is no rhyme or reason to what you can summon beyond their effectiveness in combat. The actual difficulty in summoning them (i.e. the spell's level) is not in any way related to mass, intelligence of the creature, saving throws, planar location, SR, or anything of the sort. There is no reason why it's easier to summon a Baleen Whale (a gargantuan 12 HD creature) than a Hellcat (a Large 8 HD creature) or why a hellcat is just as easy to summon as a Collossal Monstrous Centipede (a 24 HD collossal creature) but a barbed devil (a 12 HD, Medium creature). It's all just based on CR (i.e. game balance concerns), and even then it's not very consistent.

Now, I always assumed that the Summon Monster spells were created by the Outer Planes denziens who wanted to muck around in the Material Plane. They gave their champions on the Material Plane (eg clerics) the ability to summon creatures from the Outer Planes. Now, everything has sort of a Mutally-Assured Destruction factor involved: Let a first-level cleric summon a Solar, and next thing you know Evil Adepts are summoning Balors. So, each summonable creature is grouped according to power, with higher-level clerics given permission to access stronger creatures. Arcane summoning spells just find a way to duplicate the clerical ones (Outer Planes denziens don't really mind so long as you don't oppose them; in fact, this loophole may have been intentionally developed by the Chaotic-aligned planes in hopes of getting more of their own on the Material Plane).

oriong
2007-01-25, 03:36 PM
Even then there's illogic.

Summon Monster 1 is a first level spell that transports a creature through the planes, but no spell exists to actually transport you through the planes until 5th level (Plane Shift) or 7th level for arcane casters. It's somehow much, much easier to summon things to you than to actually send yourself somewhere (not to mention issues like the control you have over the creature you summon). Reasonably it should be easier to planeshift yourself rather than summon something (even if, like the summon spells, it was a temporary duration trip).

The Planar Binding spell not only summons a creature, but traps it and it's of instantaneous duration and 2 levels lower than Plane Shift, yet somehow planeshift is harder.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 03:40 PM
Even then there's illogic.

Summon Monster 1 is a first level spell that transports a creature through the planes, but no spell exists to actually transport you through the planes until 5th level (Plane Shift) or 7th level for arcane casters. It's somehow much, much easier to summon things to you than to actually send yourself somewhere (not to mention issues like the control you have over the creature you summon). Reasonably it should be easier to planeshift yourself rather than summon something (even if, like the summon spells, it was a temporary duration trip).

Well, as I said, that's because the summoning spells are basically just sending a message to the Outer Planes, where whatever it is that adjucates the spell sends the appropriate monster over.


The Planar Binding spell not only summons a creature, but traps it and it's of instantaneous duration and 2 levels lower than Plane Shift, yet somehow planeshift is harder.

I see nothing wrong with that. We "summoned" creatures from the ocean and trapped them (by dropping nets in the water) long before we entered the ocean with submarines and SCUBA gear ourselves.

oriong
2007-01-25, 03:45 PM
I see nothing wrong with that. We "summoned" creatures from the ocean and trapped them (by dropping nets in the water) long before we entered the ocean with submarines and SCUBA gear ourselves.

Hardly, we were swimming long before the net was invented.

And anyway, it's not a very good metaphor, there is nothing that prevents humans from living on another plane (such as a lack of breathable oxygen or similar hazards). For the most part they're just as survivable as the Material. There are obvious exceptions but they also don't have anything to do with the Plane Shift spell since that doesn't do a thing to protect you from them.

Dark
2007-01-25, 04:05 PM
Summon Monster 1 is a first level spell that transports a creature through the planes, but no spell exists to actually transport you through the planes until 5th level (Plane Shift) or 7th level for arcane casters. It's somehow much, much easier to summon things to you than to actually send yourself somewhere (not to mention issues like the control you have over the creature you summon).
There's nothing wrong with that. You've just described the Planar Attraction Effect: it is easier to summon things to you than it is to send yourself elsewhere. This seems to be a pretty consistent law of magic actually, and it is well documented in fiction. You rarely hear about demonologists visiting hell, unless one of their negotiations goes terribly wrong.


Reasonably it should be easier to planeshift yourself rather than summon something (even if, like the summon spells, it was a temporary duration trip).
Reasonably it should be easier to fly than to throw something? :smalltongue:
I think you're just using the wrong metaphor for it.


The Planar Binding spell not only summons a creature, but traps it and it's of instantaneous duration and 2 levels lower than Plane Shift, yet somehow planeshift is harder.
You're also assuming that the difficulty of a spell is tied to the complexity of its effect. The difficulty of learning and casting a spell could depend on any number of factors, one of which could be simply the extent to which the world's wizards have managed to simplify the invocation. One possibility is that each spell requires certain "power signs", and some signs can only be used at higher levels. Then a spell is higher level if it happens to need a high-level sign, not because of what the spell does. If you then assume that more complex spell effects need more signs, so they have a higher chance of needing a high-level sign, then you also explain the general correlation between spell power and spell level.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 04:10 PM
Hardly, we were swimming long before the net was invented.

And anyway, it's not a very good metaphor, there is nothing that prevents humans from living on another plane (such as a lack of breathable oxygen or similar hazards). For the most part they're just as survivable as the Material. There are obvious exceptions but they also don't have anything to do with the Plane Shift spell since that doesn't do a thing to protect you from them.

How about this, then: The Planar Binding spell creates a sort of trap, or a "magnet," if you will, that draws its target into the Prime Material. It just catches the first of that particular Outsider that falls into it, and they are drawn to the "target" created by the spell. Plane Shifting, on the other hand, is much more complex: You must design a spell that sends you out of the Material Plane with no "magnet" directing you towards any particular target. In theory, you could develop a totally random version of Plane Shift at a far lower level, but you'd probably end up stuck inside something or in the deep vacuum of space or something even more unpleasant.

Turcano
2007-01-25, 04:12 PM
It's fairly easy to work magic into a system that conforms to and is governed by the laws of physics; Terry Pratchett has hinted at such in his works, and I will borrow and expand on that in the following theoretical explanation.

Magic is the manipulation of high-energy particles called thaums, which are distributed (relatively) evenly throughout a given plane. Thaums are comprised of subatomic particles called resons*, which release large amounts of energy when they separate. Specific combinations of sound vibrations, movement, material objects, and/or the intervention of a diety can cause resons to split, causing a specific release of energy that manipulates surrounding matter (or forms new matter) with a predictible outcome. Some of this energy is released in the form of θ-rays, of which there are eight different subtypes; these rays can be detected using certain forms of magic. Non-instantaneous manifestations of magic cause the breakage and re-formation of thaums, creating a thaum-brane, or θ-brane; θ-branes can exist indefinitely, which allows practiced spellcasters to imbue objects (or creatures) with magic. However, creating strong θ-branes can cause temporary or even permanent madness in those who are not prepared to handle them, which has led to the wizard's expression "He's insane in the thaum-brane."

*Literally, "thingies."

oriong
2007-01-25, 04:26 PM
There's nothing wrong with that. You've just described the Planar Attraction Effect: it is easier to summon things to you than it is to send yourself elsewhere. This seems to be a pretty consistent law of magic actually, and it is well documented in fiction. You rarely hear about demonologists visiting hell, unless one of their negotiations goes terribly wrong.

This isn't unreasonable, however it's still difficult to integrate consistently into D+D magic. For example, why is it easy to summon a creature but hard to summon/create an object? (such as a Wall of something). What about things like Summon Nature's Ally? Or weirder stuff like Summon Undead? At 5th level you can banish and recall Leomund's secret chest into the Ethereal, but you can't do it to yourself until 7th level, and you can only do it for longer than one round/level at 9th level.

The 'magnet' metaphor isn't a bad one, and it's fairly consistent. But my point was a bit more general.



Reasonably it should be easier to fly than to throw something? :smalltongue:
I think you're just using the wrong metaphor for it.

I don't think I was using a metaphor at all.

If anything planeshifting yourself is the throwing and summoning is the flying. In the case of a planeshift you disapear and pop in over there. In the case of the summons you reach out, get a creature, bring it to you, and then return it. Which seems simpler?

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-25, 07:12 PM
Ex.: Now, there's a type of energy in the area around us, it can be atmosphere based or not, like gas or magnetism. Now, the motions of your hands combined with the precise sonic frequencies of the words you utter manipulate the energy, which is tangible enough to be moved by your hands but undetectable because the nervous systems of humans/elves/etc. can't detect it, to create the spell effect. Only if it's precise, now - thus a botched spell could produce any effect or no effect at all. Also, the frequencies (words) used almost always come out like gobbledegook, so normal speech will never spontaneously generate fireball. Now for metamagic: as it turns out, the sequences most run through while casting a spell are something like overkill, the firing of the synapses in your brain is sufficient (concentration) but incredibly difficult (also, it's required that you do this ahead of time, (rest to prepare spells) which will anchor most of the effect to you, because when the reaction is begun the magic gravitates to that person who started it), thus you can generate the same effect at faster speeds (quicken) or without the words (silent) or motions (stilled). It can go on from there. There. Magic is now governed by laws of physics and chemisty. It's not my fault that the little citizens of DnD can't measure the magical energy in the air and reduce it to mathematical formulae, or can they? (Geometer). Oh, and I houserule in that anyone who performs the actions correctly can cast spells, or that a machine could theoretically produce them, which is what the rules of multiclassing suggest anyway. What's more, chemicals in the air or such can alter the spells, but that's rarely an issue in DnD. And, since physics is causing magic, catastrophic or powerful events can cause changes in the magic, so things like stars going nova or comets passing nearby really can produce odd effects like, say, boosting divination.


That's not what I mean.

Magic has no internal consistency within itself. The effects of one spell of a certain level are often drastically out of tune (in terms of energy required and complexity) with spells of the same level, or those of higher levels. Some examples:

Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud. They both produce the exact same volume of fog, with the same in-game effects. Except one is mobile the other is immobile. The mobile one clearly is more complex and requires more energy, however it is lower level because it is less effective in terms of game balance.

Summon Monster spells: there is no rhyme or reason to what you can summon beyond their effectiveness in combat. The actual difficulty in summoning them (i.e. the spell's level) is not in any way related to mass, intelligence of the creature, saving throws, planar location, SR, or anything of the sort. There is no reason why it's easier to summon a Baleen Whale (a gargantuan 12 HD creature) than a Hellcat (a Large 8 HD creature) or why a hellcat is just as easy to summon as a Collossal Monstrous Centipede (a 24 HD collossal creature) but a barbed devil (a 12 HD, Medium creature). It's all just based on CR (i.e. game balance concerns), and even then it's not very consistent.

Creation Spells: It is much easier to create wood (which is much more chemically complex) than iron, and it is more difficult to create gold or silver than iron or steel.

The energy needed to both create an Earthquake effect and contain it within a small areas is many, many times vaster than the relative energy released in any destructive spell (fireball, DBF, or Meteor Swarm for example).

Yes, the DM can claim whatever he wants, but the more explanation you attempt the greater number of holes there will be in it. All of the examples you give do absolutely nothing to integrate magic with physics, it's no more plausible than saying 'invisible angels did it when you ask them politely'. The DM is free to come up with his own pseudo science explanation if he feels the need but it just makes it even less believable because it is inevitably horrible, horrible science. It's better to leave the mechanics undefined than trying to tack on a shoddy explanation.

Emphasis mine.

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage as you refuse to define what "integrating magic with physics" means, and as such you can just keep saying I didn't do it. I don't see too many holes in the example I provided. What's the problem? Magic in the example provided is governed by wave motion, kinetic energy, and chemistry. Is it that you can't "detect" magic? Here's a list of things that exist that you can't detect with your body: magnetism, carbon monoxide, the rotation of the earth, the earth's rotation around the sun, and so forth. And yes, summoning and creation spells don't scale against complexity or mass. There are other ways to measure the creatures. Energy perhaps? How about density for the creation stuff? And you're operating under the assumption that the earthquake spell is an actual earthquake that you're containing in a small area. What if it's a telekinetic shove at the earth? Then it would be about equivalent to bringing fireballs to life out of thin air.

Think in expanding, not shrinking, terms. Because one avenue of measurements and laws doesn't work doesn't mean they all don't nor do all spells have to be relative to the exact same laws, just like centripital motion and wave-particle physics aren't nescessarily governed by the same laws. They do at some level, but so would summoning and evocation spells if someone would spend the time on it. I didn't say it would be easy. I would also point out that once the creatures from summon monster and the items from creation are active, they obey the laws of physics like everything else.

oriong
2007-01-25, 11:28 PM
Here is what I mean: The point of the original post (as I understood it) was to try and see if magic was something that broke the laws of physics as we understand them.

For the sake of this arguement I am already assuming that A) Magic's 'how' is taken care of. There doesn't need to be an explanation for why the wizard's motions and hand gestures activate these effects, so long as they do it in a consistent way. If you didn't assume that the arguement would be dead from the start.

B) Magic has some energy source at it's disposal. This could either be some 'mana energy' that is undetectable, or drawing from a power source that is functionally unlimited (the sun as someone else suggested), again so long as there is consistency.

Both A and B are absolutely necessary for the arguement to even begin, because those are the things that aren't measurable by the rules. The game doesn't tell you where the power of magic comes from, or why the words and gestures make a spell happen. Anyone's explanation is just as good as another, so long as it's internally consistent.

Now, your previous example attempted to create an explanation for A and B, which as I said is unnecessary. We are not asking 'why' magic works, or 'where' magic comes from. We're asking if it behaves consistently with physics as we understand them. What's more the explanation is far too complex and therefore eventualyl breaks down. That's what happens with almost all sci-fi and pseudo-science that gets too complex. It doesn't work when you examine it closely. But like I said, your explanation covers unnecessary ground so it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is what we are given about magic's effects: the spell effects. Can the effects of a spell be explained consistently with physics. And the answer is no. Because the effects of a spell don't follow science, they follow game balance. I've already given several answers to illustrate why this is.

But that's the problem, it's not 'why' or 'where' does magic happen or come from. It's more like 'why can a wizard create matter, but not detonate the planet with a 0 level spell?' And things of that nature. How can Reduce Person even exist? Why can you modify an objects structure on a delicate enough level to create a mending spell on an object at 0th level, but can't make a sword sharp until 3rd?

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-26, 03:24 AM
Oh.

Well in that case, yeah, magic can't be reconciled with the physics we know. If it could, someone would have figured out how to cast spells in the thousands of years of recorded history we have, and I would have been able to smoke those bullies in middle school with fireball. I thought the OP was asking for a rule set for the interaction of magic with physics, or physics with magic, and wanted an embellishment of what you say is inherant.

Maybe I should ask what I'm supposed to prove before I start arguing next time, eh?

oriong
2007-01-26, 03:37 AM
Well, to be fair the original question was pretty vague. it's hard to tell whether he even means 'earth' physics.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 06:58 AM
Indeed. But Wikipdia defines a physical law to be a scientific generalisation based on the empirical observation of physical phenomena, and while you can't really view sonnets as physical phenomena, viewing fireballs or people flying as physical phenomena seems quite reasonable.

It might seem reasonable, but it isn't.

Momentum and gravity are physical phenomena. Heat transfer is a physical phenomenon. "A fire" and "an aeroplane" are not physical phenomena, they are technologies derived from physical phenomena. In the same way "fireballs" and "flight" spells are (in the "magic-as-science" system) technologies based on magical phenomena.


Yes. Exactly. Falling objects can only be explained in terms of scientific laws if the laws are deliberately designed to replicate falling objects.

But that's rather my point. The laws are not designed to replicate falling objects, the laws are not *designed* at all. They just *are*. Objects fall how they fall, scientists come along and work out what the rules are.


I don't see how this is a fundamental problem - if the physical world behaves in a strange and inconsistent way with no simple underlying explanation, then your laws of science are going to have to do the same.

If the physical world behaves in an inconsistent way you cannot have laws of science. Laws of science only *work* on the assumption that they always work exactly the same way.


You may not end up with very elegant laws of physics, or laws of physics that resemble the ones in our world, you may not consider the things that you get out at the end to be useful enough to be worth the effort, but you do have laws of physics.

Let me try to put it another way.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force" is a physical law.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will explode" is also a physical law. It's just not a physical law from the real world.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will sometimes accelerate in the direction of the resultant force and sometimes will not" is not a physical law at all.

A physical law has to deal (as the Wikipedia article says) in generalities. A physical law in a magical universe can have no reference to "fireball spells" or "tenser's floating disk". The moment you start referencing explicit spells, you're talking about an art, not a science.

Jorkens
2007-01-26, 09:34 AM
It might seem reasonable, but it isn't.

Momentum and gravity are physical phenomena. Heat transfer is a physical phenomenon. "A fire" and "an aeroplane" are not physical phenomena, they are technologies derived from physical phenomena. In the same way "fireballs" and "flight" spells are (in the "magic-as-science" system) technologies based on magical phenomena.
Sorry, I shouldn't be talking about 'a Fireball'. The presence of lot of fire where there wasn't any a moment ago is a physical phenomenon. A scientist can objectively observe it and then start trying to explain how it came to be there. And an explanation of how it came to be there is, on some level, physics.

But that's rather my point. The laws are not designed to replicate falling objects, the laws are not *designed* at all. They just *are*. Objects fall how they fall, scientists come along and work out what the rules are.
Scientists come along and work out mathematical models which describe and predict how things behave. These are what we generally refer to as 'laws of science'. Gravity, for instance, isn't just a theory created by people, it's a theory created by people that has been shown not to be accurate.


If the physical world behaves in an inconsistent way you cannot have laws of science. Laws of science only *work* on the assumption that they always work exactly the same way.

'Inconsistent' was the wrong word, to be honest. The real world is more or less by definition incapable of being inconsistent. What I meant was that if the way that the world behaves doesn't have a particularly simple description then that doesn't mean that physics can't describe it, it just means that the physics that you need to describe will have to be as strange and exception-riddled as the world is.


Let me try to put it another way.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force" is a physical law.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will explode" is also a physical law. It's just not a physical law from the real world.

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will sometimes accelerate in the direction of the resultant force and sometimes will not" is not a physical law at all.
"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force with a probability 'X' and will not with a probablility '1-X'"? Essentially, either the reaction of the body to a force imbalance is completely random (in which case the foregoing is a good description of it) or there are other factors affecting how it behaves, in which case a probablilistic description doesn't help. But in this case, you can start researching what the factors are and make your description conditional on them.


A physical law has to deal (as the Wikipedia article says) in generalities. A physical law in a magical universe can have no reference to "fireball spells" or "tenser's floating disk". The moment you start referencing explicit spells, you're talking about an art, not a science.
But generalities don't have to be all that general, particularly in the early stages of your science - wikipedia specifically says 'generalization based on empirical observation'. So an empirical observation would be that everyone who produced a ball of fire did so using bat guano, and a generalisation would be that bat guano is neccessary for producing balls of fire. From there you might start investigating whether any other effects need bat guano, whether there's anything you could use in the place of the bat guano, whether it matters what sort of bat it came from...

Indoril
2007-01-26, 09:48 AM
Why is this thread still alive?!

Golthur
2007-01-26, 10:40 AM
Why is this thread still alive?!
Because ALL CATGIRLS MUST DIE! :tongue:

Indoril
2007-01-26, 12:16 PM
Because ALL CATGIRLS MUST DIE! :tongue:

There aren't any left. They're all dead. Congratulations guys! You killed all the catgirls! You've pissed off animu freaks the world over!

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 03:14 PM
Sorry, I shouldn't be talking about 'a Fireball'. The presence of lot of fire where there wasn't any a moment ago is a physical phenomenon. A scientist can objectively observe it and then start trying to explain how it came to be there. And an explanation of how it came to be there is, on some level, physics.

No.

"A fireball" is no more a physical phenomenon than "a statue" is a physical phenomenon. "Fire" is a physical phenomenon (and a chemical reaction). Spells aren't physics, they're technology.


Scientists come along and work out mathematical models which describe and predict how things behave. These are what we generally refer to as 'laws of science'. Gravity, for instance, isn't just a theory created by people, it's a theory created by people that has been shown not to be accurate.

You misunderstand me. When I say "the physical laws describing D&D magic would need to have been designed deliberately to lead to D&D magic" I don't mean "scientists would deliberately have to have studied D&D magic and invented laws to explain it" I mean "God, or some other intelligent entity, must have deliberately sat down to create a universe in which the physical laws led inevitably to D&D magic, probably by inventing each spell individually from the outset."

The point is that no set of general physical laws would ever lead to the D&D spell list. As another poster points out, the summoning spells are an extremely good example. There can be no *physical* law explaining why the creatures on the summon lists at levels 1-9 are on the lists they're on.


'Inconsistent' was the wrong word, to be honest. The real world is more or less by definition incapable of being inconsistent.

D&D magic, however, is utterly inconsistent.


What I meant was that if the way that the world behaves doesn't have a particularly simple description then that doesn't mean that physics can't describe it, it just means that the physics that you need to describe will have to be as strange and exception-riddled as the world is.

And the moment you have exceptions, you don't have physics, you have game mechanics.

Either momentum is conserved, or it isn't. You can't say "momentum is conserved except when it isn't" and call that a physical law.


"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force with a probability 'X' and will not with a probablility '1-X'"?

Which is another way of saying "we don't have a clue what will happen" which is not a physical law.


Essentially, either the reaction of the body to a force imbalance is completely random (in which case the foregoing is a good description of it) or there are other factors affecting how it behaves, in which case a probablilistic description doesn't help. But in this case, you can start researching what the factors are and make your description conditional on them.

But you will never get a usable physical law, because D&D magic is *not* based on a consistent set of underlying physical laws.


But generalities don't have to be all that general, particularly in the early stages of your science - wikipedia specifically says 'generalization based on empirical observation'. So an empirical observation would be that everyone who produced a ball of fire did so using bat guano, and a generalisation would be that bat guano is neccessary for producing balls of fire.

No, generalities *do* have to be that general. That's how they *work*. "All fireballs require bat guano" is not a physical law, it's a recipe. Recipes are *not* physics.


From there you might start investigating whether any other effects need bat guano, whether there's anything you could use in the place of the bat guano, whether it matters what sort of bat it came from...

None of which relate to laws of physics.

Dark
2007-01-26, 03:31 PM
Which is another way of saying "we don't have a clue what will happen" which is not a physical law.
You must be really annoyed about quantum mechanics.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 06:44 PM
You must be really annoyed about quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say "we don't have a clue what will happen". Quantum mechanics says, in fact, that there are a large number of things that definitely can *not* happen.

Dark
2007-01-26, 07:01 PM
Look, the person you were quoting said:

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force with a probability 'X' and will not with a probablility '1-X'"

Whereas quantum mechanics gives you statements like

"The electron will activate detector A with a probability 'X' and will activate detector B with a probability '1-X'"

Neither of them means you don't have a clue.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 07:17 PM
Look, the person you were quoting said:

"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will accelerate in the direction of the resultant force with a probability 'X' and will not with a probablility '1-X'"

Whereas quantum mechanics gives you statements like

"The electron will activate detector A with a probability 'X' and will activate detector B with a probability '1-X'"

Neither of them means you don't have a clue.

No, quantum mechanics expresses probabilities through fearsomely complex differential equations.

"Detectors" and "electrons" also have nothing to do with the laws of physics. They're the components of a single experiment.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 07:24 PM
Quantum mechanics doesn't say "we don't have a clue what will happen". Quantum mechanics says, in fact, that there are a large number of things that definitely can *not* happen.

Really? I thought it said that there were things that very extremely unlikely to happen, like a particle going through another.

What does it say definitely can not happen? I'm curious now.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 07:35 PM
Really? I thought it said that there were things that very extremely unlikely to happen, like a particle going through another.

What does it say definitely can not happen? I'm curious now.

An atom absorbing or emitting a photon whose wavelength does not correspond to a possible energy-level transition within that atom.

People think that Quantum mechanics means that "all bets are off". It doesn't, it has very, very specific rules.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-26, 07:47 PM
And even then I still subscribe to the belief that the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics simply represents factors far too complex for us to take into account (or even detect in the first place). Still, the above example of a man being pushed with a certain probability of either going forwards or backwards in a world where physics in not like are own could be the same thing. It's like flipping a coin: For all intents and purposes, there's a 50% chance it will come up heads and a 50% chance for tails, but if you were to actually look at all the factors involved, it's really not random at all.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 07:49 PM
An atom absorbing or emitting a photon whose wavelength does not correspond to a possible energy-level transition within that atom.

That makes sense, you learn that in High School chemistry, normally. But they didn't tell us what it had to do with Quantum Physics.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 07:53 PM
And even then I still subscribe to the belief that the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics simply represents factors far too complex for us to take into account (or even detect in the first place). Still, the above example of a man being pushed with a certain probability of either going forwards or backwards in a world where physics in not like are own could be the same thing. It's like flipping a coin: For all intents and purposes, there's a 50% chance it will come up heads and a 50% chance for tails, but if you were to actually look at all the factors involved, it's really not random at all.

But that's not the example, the example is of a man being pushed with a probability of anything at all happening, and the only statement we can make is "the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcomes is 1". That's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of ignorance.

Jorkens
2007-01-26, 07:57 PM
No, quantum mechanics expresses probabilities through fearsomely complex differential equations.

"Detectors" and "electrons" also have nothing to do with the laws of physics. They're the components of a single experiment.

But everything you do is with components of experiments. They're the only things that you can really talk about being there. Everything else is an abstraction into which we can hopefully (or at least ideally) plug in the numbers to describe an experiment and retrieve a statement like 'with a probability X an electron will hit a detector.'

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 08:07 PM
But everything you do is with components of experiments. They're the only things that you can really talk about being there. Everything else is an abstraction into which we can hopefully (or at least ideally) plug in the numbers to describe an experiment and retrieve a statement like 'with a probability X an electron will hit a detector.'

But that's the point. The physical laws are used to make predictions which we test by experiment. The experiments themselves are not physical laws.

Going back to D&D, you can prove, quite conclusively, that casting a fireball spell requires bat guano, that's not a physical law, it's an observation about the fireball spell. It's like looking at a bird and saying "birds need wings to fly". It's not physics.

Jorkens
2007-01-26, 08:27 PM
But that's the point. The physical laws are used to make predictions which we test by experiment. The experiments themselves are not physical laws.

Going back to D&D, you can prove, quite conclusively, that casting a fireball spell requires bat guano, that's not a physical law, it's an observation about the fireball spell. It's like looking at a bird and saying "birds need wings to fly". It's not physics.

I think I see what you mean. But 'birds need wings to fly' is a starting point for further study that would, if you were smart enough, lead you to some understanding of aerodynamics. A bird flying is a physical effect and thus being able to explain why it can happen is therefore broadly speaking within the remit of physics.

In the case of D&D magic (although I'd kind of had an arbitrary fantasy world in mind), you probably would just end up with a copy of the rules, with all their weird cases and unnatural fudges. But I think even that would be a physical theory of sorts. It'd be a model that predicts what can and cannot happen in the physical world.

To look at it another way, if someone turned up tomorrow who could repeatedly conjure fireballs from thin air under lab conditions, it would break the laws of physics as they're currently understood. But it seems extremely unlikely that physicists and other scientists, once they'd convinced themselves that what was going on was definitely really happening, would just shrug, say "yeah it's happening but it's not physics it's magic and magic is allowed to break the laws of physics" and go back to their particle accelerators and radio telescopes as if nothing had happened.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-26, 08:41 PM
To look at it another way, if someone turned up tomorrow who could repeatedly conjure fireballs from thin air under lab conditions, it would break the laws of physics as they're currently understood. But it seems extremely unlikely that physicists and other scientists, once they'd convinced themselves that what was going on was definitely really happening, would just shrug, say "yeah it's happening but it's not physics it's magic and magic is allowed to break the laws of physics" and go back to their particle accelerators and radio telescopes as if nothing had happened.

Ah, you see this is exactly my point. If somebody showed up who could conjure fireballs out of thin air, scientists would sit down, work out how they did it and then work out how to use the same principles effectively and efficiently to produce all manner of useful effects.

It comes back to: if a first level spell can conjure a blob of acid, it can conjure a megaton nuclear explosion.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 08:47 PM
By god!

Magic and physics don't coexist in D&D. Don't you see?

Magic IS the physics in D&D! Nothing exists without magical interference, be it arcane, natural or divine!

mikeejimbo
2007-01-26, 08:50 PM
By god!

Magic and physics don't coexist in D&D. Don't you see?

Magic IS the physics in D&D! Nothing exists without magical interference, be it arcane, natural or divine!

Bringing out the catgirl shock paddles, are you?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-26, 08:58 PM
More like catgirl tactical genocide bomb. They're quickly becoming a dying breed.

oriong
2007-01-26, 11:06 PM
We'll have to start killing off other semi-anthromorphs soon.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-26, 11:08 PM
Doggirls? Koopas? Werewolves?

Golthur
2007-01-26, 11:16 PM
There's a whole page of candidates here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemonomimi). :amused:

mikeejimbo
2007-01-27, 12:03 AM
There's a whole page of candidates here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemonomimi). :amused:

I vote bunnygirl.

You know, the fact that I briefly considered actually making a poll scares me a bit.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-27, 01:24 PM
I vote bunnygirl.

Every time you bring up physics, Hugh Hefner kills a Playboy Bunny?

Dervag
2007-01-27, 05:13 PM
Ah, you see this is exactly my point. If somebody showed up who could conjure fireballs out of thin air, scientists would sit down, work out how they did it and then work out how to use the same principles effectively and efficiently to produce all manner of useful effects.

It comes back to: if a first level spell can conjure a blob of acid, it can conjure a megaton nuclear explosion.Only if it creates the acid by producing a quantity of energy equivalent to the mass of the acid. It doens't have to do it that way, though.


I have no clue why you say it's a 'guideline', it's pretty darn fundamental.I say it's a guideline because mass is not a conserved quantity, and because the mass of a particular object is definitely not a conserved quantity. There are a number of physical phenomena that occur in real life that violate mass conservation, such as radioactivity.

Of course, that isn't what you mean, so using the example of radioactivity to prove that mass is not a conserved quantity doesn't directly answer your position. However, it does demonstrate that mass is not always a conserved quantity in a closed system.


If shrink works by very selectively taking away atoms until you have a smaller person then that small person would be stupider in addition to smaller: you've reduced their brain size by a sizable percentage and probably destroyed (at least temporarily) a good deal of their memories. This part is true.

If you somehow 'shrunk' the atoms themselves then the person would be unable to process air, since the new oxygen atoms are now much bigger than their cells are designed to handle, you'd probably have subatomic problems like losing lots of electrons from atoms and possibly even unstable nuclei leading to the guy's own atomic structure ripping itself apart.Not if the particles themselves shrink to scale with the caveat that the 'shrink' effect affects the entire volume you occupy. So the air molecules entering your mouth and lungs shrink to match your body size, because they are now entering the volume within which things are 'shrunk'.


And if you twiddle the physical constants in an area what you end up with is a very, very, very dead person a lot easier than you end up with a bigger or smaller person.This is certainly true if you twiddle the constants at random. However, if one knew what the constants were and what those constants did, I think it would be possible to define values for those constants such that particles continued to function the same way with respect to one another but occupied smaller volumes of space. I could, of course, be wrong.


This is ultimately the problem trying to match physics to D+D magic:internal consistancy. D+D's internal consistency is based on game balance (a third level spell does less damage than a similar 5th level spell, etc.), not on consistent uses of energy, complexity, or mass.This assumes that the process involves nothing more than energy generation.

It might well be that spellcasting is like filling out a requisition form- forms for more cash-expensive commodities are usually longer and more complicated, regardless of whether or not the expensive commodity is actually more difficult to manufacture or more complex. Requisitioning a car is going to be harder than requisitioning a pound of hamburger, even though hamburger is made of much more complicated chemicals.

Or there might be spells that compress a lot of complexity into a simple instruction that even inexperienced wizards can use.

Or maybe it's easier to cast a spell and define the position of its effect as 'me' than as 'this particular point in space relative to the surface I'm standing on'. Thus, it might be easier to get a spell effect to follow you around than to stand still relative to a position in space.

Maybe, in 'the physics of magic', spell difficulty is determined by factors other than the amount of energy required to produce an effect. Even in the physics of real life, there are a bevy of factors which can make one of two equally energetic phenomena much harder to induce than the other.


To create a "potential difference" you need to create a potential. That potential will then earth itself wherever is convenient. This may be the target, it's more likely to be something closer.If you create a potential at a point, and leave it free to flow wherever it find the path of least resistance, then yes. But that doesn't have to be how lightning bolt spells work. For instance, you could create a point at which there is high electrical potential and a path of ionized air pointing away from you towards your target. In that case, the lightning bolt would follow the conveniently created path away from you, rather than passing through the unionized air between you and the point of potential.


Okay, let's take your "carrying a beaker of acid" example.
Your "spell" relies on you having the ability to carry objects and throw them at your target. In this case "a beaker of acid" is a good choice "a hand grenade" is a better choice.That depends on what I'm trying to do. Maybe I can only teleport atoms or molecules and have no control over their configuration on the macroscopic level- my teleporter is 'out of focus'. In that case, if I try to teleport a hand grenade I end up with a blob of explosive with little specks of iron mixed in. It won't blow up, so I might as well have teleported a corrosive chemical that will have the same effect even if all the molecules end up jumbled with respect to one another.


Now suppose you invent a machine that allows you to teleport the acid from a short distance away and onto your target, why bother using acid when you can teleport a chair leg into his gut?Maybe I can't. Maybe one of the 'laws of physics' in a magical setting is that doing things inside a person's body is harder than doing the same things outside a person's body. If we have things like souls and life energy (which, in the D&D setting, we do), maybe the life force interferes with magical effects that would attempt to disrupt it by introducing alien objects on its turf.


Now take the "those ions are teleported in from somewhere else" theory. In that case you've got small-scale local teleportation. Instead of faffing about with acid, teleport your victim's windpipe three feet to the left.

Or it works by electrolysing water? So in other words you have the power to ionise matter at will? Great, just do that to your targets brain and kill them instantly.Again, that only works if it is as easy for me to work an effect inside a body as outside of it. In the real world, that's basically true; but it doesn't have to be if things like souls and life energy and so on are taken as part of the physical 'background' that makes up the universe.

I'm not saying that any of this makes good sense in the context of the real-world laws of physics. As far as I can tell, every single spell in the books is physically impossible in the real world. But I can imagine a world with consistent laws of physics that don't work the same way the ones in the real world do. For example, I can imagine a world in which mass is a conserved quantity. In such a world, a lot of things would be different- for starters, the Sun wouldn't shine. But such a universe could easily have internally consistent physical laws that just happen to be different and produce different ones from the ones I know, love, and study.

And I can imagine a world where there are extra physical quantities such as 'life energy' which restrict my ability to perform actions in much the same way that momentum or entropy do in the real world. Energy conservation doesn't explain why I can't pour the milk back out of my coffee if I decide I wanted black coffee after all. Entropy does, because it prohibits certain actions that are possible from the standpoint of energy conservation. Likewise, we can posit a hypothetical universe with additional physical quantities that would prohibit certain actions that appear possible under the laws we know.


Even so, if you have the power to move matter and energy around at will, you can kill anybody instantly, with a thought.Again, that is true if and only if all manipulations of equal amounts of mass or energy are equally easy. That doesn't have to be true.


And even then, we're in the area of "It's not theoretically entirely impossible," which is mostly "soft SF" - "Well, we've got this way of causing quantum tunneling where you turn into particles that somehow know how to reassemble into you thousands of miles away..." The effects of D&D magic are the kind of thing you see in Star Trek or Star Wars, both of which are the sort of fantasy that gleefully ignores reality.Yes. Yes it is. There is no hard science fiction explanation for D&D magic or Star Trek teleporters, and I know it perfectly well. Any such explanation depends on the ability to add extra terms to physical equations, to posit new physical quantities that do not apply in the real world, or some such thing.

But you can still have a hypothetical universe with consistent laws of physics that do not match the ones in the real world. What I'm doing is speculating as to what those laws might be, how they might work, and why they might restrict the things we observe them restricting while permitting the things we observe them permitting.


Postulating nonexistent mechanisms that allow these "superscience" or "magic" (same thing, really) effects is not staying within the bounds of the "laws of nature" or "laws of physics" - it's just a bunch of "Well, maybe it would work like this..."I'm trying to do what a real physicist would do if they suddenly found themselves in a world where D&D rules apply. I'm trying to identify underlying explanations for why some things happen and others don't. I'm not trying to say that we can reproduce D&D magic under the laws of physics that obtain in the real world, because we very obviously can't. Magic is completely inexplicable without positing extra physical laws. I certainly agree with you that far.


On the contrary, what I'm saying is the following:
Firstly, it is impossible for a high level fighter to be killed by a sword blow. This strongly implies that fighterskin is a special material impervious to swords. You can therefore make armour from it which is light, flexible, and impervious to sword-blows.
Which is the difference between physics and game mechanics. Physics is consistent, game mechanics aren't.But if fighterskin were truly impervious to swords in the sense that tank armor is impervious to small-caliber ammunition, then it would be able to survive being hit repeatedly with the same sword several times in different parts of the skin. Which it isn't. You can confirm this by asking any fighter who gets hit repeatedly with swords fifty or so times- you may have to hold a seance to get ahold of them, though.

So whatever protects fighters from swords, it isn't skin hardness.


Well, yes. But then we can at least agree that this means a fantasy world's physics are so alien to Earth physics that you can't apply much Newton to it.More or less true, at least it is once you start pulling out magic or hit points.

I would have no reluctance to use Newtonian mechanics to calculate how far a projectile could be thrown from the top of a cliff in D&D. But I know that if I use the core D&D rules, then I cannot relate statistical damage directly to impact velocity, impact momentum, or impact kinetic energy.


Likewise, if someone showed up who could consistantly conjure fireballs from bat guano under lab conditions, you wouldn't ignore it as being magic and therefore allowed to break the laws of physics but rather you'd start trying to extend the laws of physics to explain and describe what this person can do...And, if you're like some of the physicists I know, because you want to be able to do it to, because it's awesome.


And not to mention it violates inertia. In order to stop all 'change' outside of the caster you need to instantly cease all motion and energetic processes. And what's more, when the spell ends you'd need to renew them. So...if this spell has the power to instantly counter the net kinetic energy of the entire universe and then restart it (including the rotation of the earth, sun, moon, every living thing, etc.) then why does Meteor Swarm only do 32d6 damage at most?Alternatively:
D&D time is quantized into units. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the minimum quantization is the picosecond. Then all movement and physical interactions occur in discrete intervals of that length or some multiple thereof. A moving object actually stays in one place for a picosecond, then 'instantly' moves to some other place for one picosecond, and so on. This is precisely the way computers model motion, by the way.

Now, instead of bringing everything in the universe to a screeching halt for X picoseconds (where X is the duration of a Time Stop in picoseconds), what we do is give the caster a bunch of 'free picoseconds' which take place between two picosecond-long 'ticks' of the universal clock. During the free picoseconds, the caster and any particles which the caster interacts with (such as the air molecules under his nose) are free to move normally. However, there is a mass or elasticity limit on this interaction- massive bodies do not move during the free picoseconds, while nonmassive bodies such as air molecules do.

Therefore, the caster is free to move and act within a nonrigid medium such as air or water without suffocating or being trapped in an immobile cocoon of frozen air. But the caster cannot pick up massive objects and move them, because that would exceed the mass limit on the interactions that can occur within the 'free picoseconds'.

Now, that couldn't happen in real life, but I can describe it in terms of an alternate physics which might be the one that applies in D&D.


Overall, it seems like the idea of wizards being too stupid to realize magic is impossible would be better as the premise for a humorous (and poorly-written, if I have anything to do with it) fantasy novel than as something to try to incorporate into D&D. To me, at least, it has a vaguely Discworld-esque feel to it.
There's something like that in David Eddings' Tamuli series. One of the deities in the setting causes a prolonged 'time stop' for our heroes by letting them move between ticks of the clock the way I described. Afterwards, one of the characters explains the theory of the 'time stop' to another, leading to the following (paraphrased) exchange:
"That's logically impossible. It can't possibly work."
"Yes, but Ghnomb believes that it works, and Ghnomb's belief is stronger than logic."


this thread is like a plague on catgirls.Perhaps the rule is: "Whenever you try to apply physics to D&D, God kills a catgirl. Whenever you argue that physics cannot apply to D&D, God creates a catgirl." In that case, we're probably about even on destruction and creation of catgirls.


The energy needed to both create an Earthquake effect and contain it within a small areas is many, many times vaster than the relative energy released in any destructive spell (fireball, DBF, or Meteor Swarm for example).Again, assuming that all interactions that use the same amount of matter or energy are equally easy or equally possible, then yes. But one can construct a consistent system of physical laws in which this is not true. For that matter, it's not true in real life. I can pour milk into coffee, but I can't pour the the milk back out of my cafe con leche, even though pouring milk out of cafe con leche doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy.


Yes, the DM can claim whatever he wants, but the more explanation you attempt the greater number of holes there will be in it. All of the examples you give do absolutely nothing to integrate magic with physics, it's no more plausible than saying 'invisible angels did it when you ask them politely'.In a world where invisible angels actually exist and listen to people, this might be very plausible indeed. It is, for example, quite plausible that I might do something possible to me if you asked me politely. Angels are nicer than I am, so I see no reason why they would not do something possible to them if you asked them nicely.


Even then there's illogic.
Summon Monster 1 is a first level spell that transports a creature through the planes, but no spell exists to actually transport you through the planes until 5th level (Plane Shift) or 7th level for arcane casters. It's somehow much, much easier to summon things to you than to actually send yourself somewhere (not to mention issues like the control you have over the creature you summon). Reasonably it should be easier to planeshift yourself rather than summon something (even if, like the summon spells, it was a temporary duration trip).Maybe not. Imagine that the planes all exist at various 'altitudes' in some extra dimension. Now imagine that the Prime Material plane is at the bottom of a 'bowl' in that dimension, with the outer planes being on the lip of the bowl. If so, the energy required to summon a creature is equal to the energy required to knock it off the lip of the bowl, while the energy required to visit that creature on its home plane is equal to the energy required to climb the bowl. Similarly, it takes more energy to move an object from the Earth to the moon than from the moon to the Earth.


Oh.
Well in that case, yeah, magic can't be reconciled with the physics we know. If it could, someone would have figured out how to cast spells in the thousands of years of recorded history we have, and I would have been able to smoke those bullies in middle school with fireball.On the other hand, the bullies would probably have been ogres, so it may be a wash.


"If the forces acting on a body are imbalanced, the body will sometimes accelerate in the direction of the resultant force and sometimes will not" is not a physical law at all.No, it isn't. But then, neither is:
"If I throw an positive test charge at a narrow zone of high electrical potential, sometimes it will bounce off the zone and sometimes it will tunnel through the zone."
However, that statement is true; it's a simple description of quantum tunneling and a direct application of well-established laws of quantum mechanics. The catch is that statement 'sometimes it will and sometimes it won't.' That is not a mathematical statement; it is merely a statement of the possible outcomes. As long as which outcome occurs or the probability of the respective outcomes can be described in general mathematical terms, then you have a physical law (such as Schroedinger's Equation) even if the statement (such as the one I made about positive test charges) isn't a physical law.


The moment you start referencing explicit spells, you're talking about an art, not a science.Is this equally true if I start referencing explicit technologies in the real world?
"I can't leave the ground except when I do ." This is a true statement. Is it a physical law?
"Mass is conserved except when one of the following: is going on."
This is [i]also a true statement. Is it a physical law? And if not, then how can we assume conservation of mass for purposes of laboratory chemistry? And if so, then why isn't:
"Momentum is conserved except when one of the following: is going on."
a physical statement?


You misunderstand me. When I say "the physical laws describing D&D magic would need to have been designed deliberately to lead to D&D magic" I don't mean "scientists would deliberately have to have studied D&D magic and invented laws to explain it" I mean "God, or some other intelligent entity, must have deliberately sat down to create a universe in which the physical laws led inevitably to D&D magic, probably by inventing each spell individually from the outset."Why is this true of the D&D universe and not of [i]our universe?


The point is that no set of general physical laws would ever lead to the D&D spell list. As another poster points out, the summoning spells are an extremely good example. There can be no *physical* law explaining why the creatures on the summon lists at levels 1-9 are on the lists they're on.As a hypothesis: maybe living entities have some kind of quantity which is not strictly related to their mass, density, etc. This quantity is a function of how much power that individual creature can possess, where 'power' is defined to include a variety of factors. Perhaps a creature could not sustain itself if it did not contain enough of this vital force to match its power level.

The ease of summoning a creature is then dependent on the amount of 'vital force' it contains and not on its mass, density, etc.

You can, of course, argue that 'vital force' could only exist if someone had set out to create a universe with level-balanced summoning spells. But I can equally well argue that 'mass' could only exist if someone had set out to create a universe where matter clumps into large bodies such as stars and planets. There is no known a priori reason why objects must have mass, or why they bend space in such a way as to act as if they have mass. We merely observe that they do have mass, and move on from there.


And the moment you have exceptions, you don't have physics, you have game mechanics.Such as "Objects move in accordance with the law of gravity except when other physical forces such as electrostatic forces are affecting them?"
That statement is true- objects which are not interacting with electric, magnetic, or nuclear fields will move in accordance with the law of gravity. Whereas the electrons in a cathode-ray tube do not move in accordance with the law of gravity; they move in accordance with the combined effects of both the law of gravity and the electrostatic forces within the tube.

Why can't there be similar exceptions in a hypothetical system of physics that describes D&D, such as:
"Momentum is conserved but it is possible to transfer momentum from one distant object to another distant object through 'spooky action at a distance' under the following conditions ."


No, generalities *do* have to be that general. That's how they *work*. "All fireballs require bat guano" is not a physical law, it's a recipe. Recipes are *not* physics.And yet, in the real world recipes can be [i]explained by physics, or by physics as applied in chemistry. I can explain why I need to follow the recipe to make the cake in terms of the general laws chemistry. Why is it a priori impossible to explain why I need to follow the recipe to make a fireball in terms of the general 'laws of D&D physics'?


No, quantum mechanics expresses probabilities through [i]fearsomely complex differential equations.Yes, but in any actual case where you apply them to a scenario with binary outcomes such as "electron passing through the barrier or bouncing off the barrier", it eventually boils down to fixed probabilities of X and 1-X.

In principle, one could do the same things with binary outcomes such as "momentum conserved or not conserved."


"Detectors" and "electrons" also have nothing to do with the laws of physics. They're the components of a single experiment.Does this mean that detectors and electrons do not obey the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics cannot be deduced by observing the laws of physics, or that you meant some other, third thing which I can't deduce from your statement? If it's either of the first two things, then I know some people who will be very disappointed indeed, because they've wasted a lot of time and money trying to deduce the laws of physics by examining results found using detectors.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-27, 05:20 PM
Good lord! Dervag, are your hands okay? Should I call the paramedics? Don't die on me, man!

GuesssWho
2007-01-27, 06:43 PM
Not really: Shifting planes means that you've moved, or shifted your orientation along, some other dimensional axis. The actual distance traveled may be small, or even 0.

To pull in some sci-fi... it's no different than the FTL travel in Heinlein's Starman Jones, or Tunnel in the sky, which aren't uncommon among the hard science sci-fi writers.

The poll questions aren't phrased well, and there really should be a more answers

1. Magic can be completly explained using our current world notion of physics (with the minor addition of you can use magic, but all of the effects must have physics explanations.
2. Magic can be explained based off of real world physics but there are some "laws of physics" that magic obeys that either do not apply in the real world.
3. Magic does allow the caster to bend the rules or reality; it works outside of normal physics.
4. There are no laws of physics.

personally, I can see basing a campaign off of 2 or 3; as long as you pick which one for your campaign and are consistant, there shouldn't be a problem. 1 & 4 might be doable as well, but 1 is a pain to keep track of, and 4 is so random that it can hard to play (it's ok if you have a loonie for a GM)

edit: iirc, the speed of light on discword is ~90 mph in most places, depending how much magic is in the area.

Yeah. I think magic has it's own rules; ie #2.

Aaluran
2007-01-27, 07:22 PM
I normally just lurk on this topic because I have nothing of value to add but I must say this:

Dervag, this is the single longest post I have ever seen on a forum. I admire your patience. It also proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that magic can be explained by physics (although not by our physics). Thumbs up, man!

oriong
2007-01-27, 08:02 PM
Very impressively long post Dervag, and some of it is quite true. For instance I have been at least trying (if not suceeding) to take into account that certain things may be easier or harder in D+D (such as summoning elemental energy as opposed to non-elemental energy) by magical metaphyics. But I think there are still a few issues here:




I say it's a guideline because mass is not a conserved quantity, and because the mass of a particular object is definitely not a conserved quantity. There are a number of physical phenomena that occur in real life that violate mass conservation, such as radioactivity.

Of course, that isn't what you mean, so using the example of radioactivity to prove that mass is not a conserved quantity doesn't directly answer your position. However, it does demonstrate that mass is not always a conserved quantity in a closed system.

Yes, I suppose I should have been more clear. I meant mass-energy (there's probably a better term). So, while mass might not be constant throughout a system, it has to be accounted for (i.e. the energy has to go somewhere).



This is certainly true if you twiddle the constants at random. However, if one knew what the constants were and what those constants did, I think it would be possible to define values for those constants such that particles continued to function the same way with respect to one another but occupied smaller volumes of space. I could, of course, be wrong.

My point wasn't so much that randomly messing with the constants would do that, it's that intentional messing with them could. For instance, why is 'liquify person' not a 1st level spell as well? Or disentigrate? The necessary manipulation of physical constants to produce either of these effects seems actually far easier to produce and far more likely to suceed.


If you create a potential at a point, and leave it free to flow wherever it find the path of least resistance, then yes. But that doesn't have to be how lightning bolt spells work. For instance, you could create a point at which there is high electrical potential and a path of ionized air pointing away from you towards your target. In that case, the lightning bolt would follow the conveniently created path away from you, rather than passing through the unionized air between you and the point of potential.

This would be true except for the fact that lighting bolts still don't behave like electricity. they travel through their targets, zapping each one with equal amounts of damage rather than just grounding on the first one.



Alternatively:
D&D time is quantized into units. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the minimum quantization is the picosecond. Then all movement and physical interactions occur in discrete intervals of that length or some multiple thereof. A moving object actually stays in one place for a picosecond, then 'instantly' moves to some other place for one picosecond, and so on. This is precisely the way computers model motion, by the way.

Now, instead of bringing everything in the universe to a screeching halt for X picoseconds (where X is the duration of a Time Stop in picoseconds), what we do is give the caster a bunch of 'free picoseconds' which take place between two picosecond-long 'ticks' of the universal clock. During the free picoseconds, the caster and any particles which the caster interacts with (such as the air molecules under his nose) are free to move normally. However, there is a mass or elasticity limit on this interaction- massive bodies do not move during the free picoseconds, while nonmassive bodies such as air molecules do.

Therefore, the caster is free to move and act within a nonrigid medium such as air or water without suffocating or being trapped in an immobile cocoon of frozen air. But the caster cannot pick up massive objects and move them, because that would exceed the mass limit on the interactions that can occur within the 'free picoseconds'.

This would still cause problems: first in such a universe you'd basically have to throw out ideas like inertia: objects are starting and stopping their motion countless times over and over again with no apparent energy being used or lost. While it might be possible to postulate a universe where this is the case, the physical laws would be so absolutely insane that they would be unimaginable. Why would anything move anywhere? why does an object move in a certain direction and not randomly change?


Maybe not. Imagine that the planes all exist at various 'altitudes' in some extra dimension. Now imagine that the Prime Material plane is at the bottom of a 'bowl' in that dimension, with the outer planes being on the lip of the bowl. If so, the energy required to summon a creature is equal to the energy required to knock it off the lip of the bowl, while the energy required to visit that creature on its home plane is equal to the energy required to climb the bowl. Similarly, it takes more energy to move an object from the Earth to the moon than from the moon to the Earth.

Then you have to deal with the issue that the creature then goes from the Material back to their home plane: a two-way rather than one-way trip.




A lot of the conclusions here seem to point to D+D metaphysics only working if you assume that they are exactly what they really are: the more or less arbitrary actions of entities (or at least quasi-intelligent forces) whose ability to manipulate energies exist on such a scale that every spell effect requires roughly the same amoutn of effort and they decide to use this power for the sake of the caster if 'petitioned' properly: making no distinction on the actual amount of effort required to produce the effects desired by the caster.

Of course this is literally the case, for the DM and the PCS. All it takes is saying X happens. It's just as easy to say "I shrink him" as it is to say "I burn him". But, this isn't how it's modeled within the game itself (arcane casters at least are represented as explicitly not relying on aid from others, psionics even less so) and I don't know that it's a satisfactory claim to physics. It certainly involves rules but the arbitrary actions of these beings are still not physics.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-28, 12:57 AM
Heh, about the Hit Point thing: Dragonquest (the webcomic) did a huge page trying to explain what Hit Points were. The conversation boiled down to this:

Hero: Ow! He took me all the way to one HP!
Old Man: Right, you'd better cast a healing spell.
Hero: Hold it, why am I still standing?
Old Man: What do you mean?
Hero: I mean he knocked off 95% of my life energy, but I still feel the same as when I was at full. Shouldn't I be on the ground, writhing and bleeding, or missing limbs?
Old Man: Oh no no... HP stands for, um, damage avoided.
Hero: Oh, ok.. but then how does healing help?
Old Man: uh....

Which is basically what that guy was saying, Dervag. Somehow your skill with swords is directly related to your ability to take damage. Even if you're still the same race, even if your constitution hasn't gone up one point, you're somehow better able to take hits at level 20 than level 1. Not to mention what it does to your immune system. Reflex and Will you can sort of explain because those are related to experience. Not so much for hp and fortitude.

Dervag
2007-01-28, 01:26 AM
Yes, I suppose I should have been more clear. I meant mass-energy (there's probably a better term). So, while mass might not be constant throughout a system, it has to be accounted for (i.e. the energy has to go somewhere).Yes, though 'somewhere' can be flexibly defined if you accept that some of the laws of D&D physics allow for action at a distance.

'No action at a distance' is the one major idea that underlies a lot of our physics. Physicists never try to rigorously explain the action of two bodies in terms of one body acting directly on another body that is distant from it. Instead, they describe interactions like gravity that occur 'at range' with the idea that every object generates a 'force field' around it, and that other objects can interact with the force field at their location. So the Earth is pulled toward the Sun because it responds to the Sun's gravitational field at the location of the Earth (or the bending of space by the Sun at the location of the Earth), and not because of some kind of invisible string that ties the two together.

If action at a distance is not forbidden under all circumstances, then many things we consider to be physically impossible become physically possible without violating the conservation laws. For instance, I might be able to give a rock momentum so I can throw it at you and (to conserve momentum) take that momentum from the Earth in its orbit. I could likewise transfer other things like energy from one place to another.


My point wasn't so much that randomly messing with the constants would do that, it's that intentional messing with them could. For instance, why is 'liquify person' not a 1st level spell as well? Or disentigrate? The necessary manipulation of physical constants to produce either of these effects seems actually far easier to produce and far more likely to suceed.It's simpler, but that doesn't make it easier.

For example, let's say that objects have a 'morphic field' (thank you, Pratchett). This morphic field asserts the basic shape, nature, and functionality of any given object. It holds people in humanoid shapes, bricks in rectangular prism shapes, and so on.

Now, hypothesize that when magical forces interact with a morphic field, they encounter strong resistance, analogous to friction or drag. It takes a great deal of energy to overcome 'morphic friction' enough to change the shape, nature, and functionality of an object. Or it doesn't take a lot of energy, but it's very hard to do because you have to tell more of the laws of physics to shut up and sit down at once.

So to change a thing's shape by magic, you have to overcome its morphic field, which can be viewed as either a frictional force resisting your changes or as an extra complicating factor that you have to hold out of the way. But to change a thing's size, you don't, because the morphic field specifies the structure of an object and not its size.

To disintegrate an object (or reduce it to a uniform pile of goo, which amounts to the same thing), you have to suppress the morphic field entirely, which is very hard indeed, which is why disintegrate and its cousin liquefy person would be difficult, high-level spells.

Now, we can (if you want) also posit that normal classical Newtonian and electromagnetic forces do not interact with the morphic field, while magical attempts to alter the physical constants or atomic structure of an object do. In that case, breaking a brick (or a person) by normal means is no harder than in real life, but breaking it by magic is much harder than changing its color or size would be.


This would be true except for the fact that lighting bolts still don't behave like electricity. they travel through their targets, zapping each one with equal amounts of damage rather than just grounding on the first one.OK, then posit a new explanation.

Lightning spells don't work by inducing electrical potentials (unless they also induce steep potential gradients in the ground below the bolt to stop electrons from grounding along the path of the bolt). Instead, they directly target some proportion of the electrons in the air with a spell and impels them with a certain force radially outwards along a linear path.

Physically impossible in real life- but then, we can't do that in real life, which suggests that the explanation for it must be unreal.


This would still cause problems: first in such a universe you'd basically have to throw out ideas like inertia: objects are starting and stopping their motion countless times over and over again with no apparent energy being used or lost.No, they're not. It's just that their movement is discrete rather than quantized. Objects don't have zero velocity 'between ticks of the clock'. They're standing still because no time is passing for them. Instead of having time pass as a continuous variable, they experience it in a series of infinitesimal instants, each of which 'carries' a fixed quantum of time.

Your inertia/momentum wouldn't even mean anything except for describing your movement from one tick to the next. In between ticks, no time passes and there can be no motion, no matter how great your velocity is. On the macroscopic scale, there's no observable difference because even with precision instruments, we generally perceive motion integrated over vast numbers of 'ticks'. With ticks as short as a picosecond, only a few kinds of subatomic interactions are affected. If that won't do, we can make the ticks arbitrarily short. In fact, we can postulate ticks as short as the Planck time, 5.4*10^-44 seconds. At that point, the 'ticking' universe of quantized time becomes indistinguishable from the real universe as we know it.


While it might be possible to postulate a universe where this is the case, the physical laws would be so absolutely insane that they would be unimaginable. Why would anything move anywhere? why does an object move in a certain direction and not randomly change?Because its momentum, kinetic energy, and other properties are conserved from this tick to the next tick unless it interacts with something else during this tick. By the same argument, there are videogames where objects appear to be obeying the laws of physics. But processors run on quantized time- the processor 'ticks' according to an internal clock. Therefore, no matter how precisely the position and speed of a moving object are recorded, they must move in discrete chunks of distance to reflect the discrete ticks of time imposed by the processor clock. Does this stop objects in-game from obeying the law of conservation of momentum?


Then you have to deal with the issue that the creature then goes from the Material back to their home plane: a two-way rather than one-way trip.Maybe you don't provide the energy to send the creature back. Maybe the energy is drawn from a (negligible) fraction of the creature's mass. Maybe it comes from a source of energy on the Outer Plane that you brought it from.


A lot of the conclusions here seem to point to D+D metaphysics only working if you assume that they are exactly what they really are: the more or less arbitrary actions of entities (or at least quasi-intelligent forces) whose ability to manipulate energies exist on such a scale that every spell effect requires roughly the same amoutn of effort and they decide to use this power for the sake of the caster if 'petitioned' properly: making no distinction on the actual amount of effort required to produce the effects desired by the caster.Not necessarily, for arcane magic. I would argue that all my hypotheses work even in the absence of a quasi-intelligent force, except insofar as a computer is quasi-intelligent. Also, I have tried to posit explanations for why the difficulty of a task might not be a function of its energy requirements or even of its simplicity.

Pouring the milk back out of my cafe con leche is very simple to describe, and it doesn't absorb much energy. But it's effectively impossible to do, because entropy imposes a difficulty restriction independent of energy conservation. Things like 'morphic fields' and 'vital forces' could hypothetically do the same.


Of course this is literally the case, for the DM and the PCS. All it takes is saying X happens. It's just as easy to say "I shrink him" as it is to say "I burn him". But, this isn't how it's modeled within the game itself (arcane casters at least are represented as explicitly not relying on aid from others, psionics even less so) and I don't know that it's a satisfactory claim to physics. It certainly involves rules but the arbitrary actions of these beings are still not physics.What if the being is a deterministic 'universal central computer' of some sort, with arcane magic and psionics representing a way of hacking the computer to induce action at a distance or alterations in physical constants or a force applied directly to the electrons without use of an electric field?

mikeejimbo
2007-01-28, 01:31 AM
Every time you bring up physics, Hugh Hefner kills a Playboy Bunny?

Yeah, I think that would cut down on people bringing up physics more than killing a catgirl.

Dervag
2007-01-28, 01:35 AM
Heh, about the Hit Point thing: Dragonquest (the webcomic) did a huge page trying to explain what Hit Points were. The conversation boiled down to this:

Which is basically what that guy was saying, Dervag. Somehow your skill with swords is directly related to your ability to take damage. Even if you're still the same race, even if your constitution hasn't gone up one point, you're somehow better able to take hits at level 20 than level 1. Not to mention what it does to your immune system. Reflex and Will you can sort of explain because those are related to experience. Not so much for hp and fortitude.
Tying this into my previous post, maybe your hit points and Fortitude save are a function of the strength of your morphic field?

Turcano
2007-01-28, 01:49 AM
Yeah, I think that would cut down on people bringing up physics more than killing a catgirl.

Probably. I'm perfectly willing to cut down catgirls like a Sith Lord in a Jedi temple.

Wehrkind
2007-01-28, 02:44 AM
I think, in D&D at least, as mentioned previously, the key difference between physics and magic is that physics works for everyone, and magic is only workable for a few classes. A mage can pick up a wand of magic missile and use it, but a cleric can't. A gun, on the other hand, is usable by anyone shown the steps, whether they understand it or not.
That is the problem with even creating a system of physics that works for D&D: the system is not internally consistent with how we understand physical laws to work. That is to say, we define physical laws to mean a result will always occure given certain circumstances, where as in D&D some things are limited from working based on your "level" and "class" (there was an example from another thread about how no matter how much studying you do as a fighter, you don't get more ranks in knowledge until you kill something.)
Now, is that to say that one couldn't create a system of physics that incorporated magic and build a coherent world and game around it? Yes, but only assuming you are omniscient. Real world physics is so complicated no one understands all of it at once, and so without so much simplification that the "laws" read like "Genesis" it would be impossible.

Granted, it would be really cool to have a "unified game system of everything", but it would likely come in so many books as to only be published in one set, never recreated.

That would make for a cool campaign hook. "Ultimate power can be yours, the secret workings of the multi-verse laid out before your eyes! Infinite knowledge to he who owns the Encyclopedia Mightanica!"

Parlik
2007-01-28, 06:32 AM
Hmmm well cannot really compare physics and magic in my opinion, magic is the manipulation of reality where as physics is the explanation of reality, so the closest comparison you can do is really between applied physics and magic.

Not sure if all of this makes sense though to anyone but me, I can give an example though, is one I have tended to use in a chat room/board RPG I had a wizard, when he was trying to teach something about magic to those that wanted to learn from him.

First thing he did was to ask the hopefull apprentice if they had 3 coins, after that he would ask the apprentice to take a pen, and draw 6 lines, each line had to pass through 2 coins, and no 2 lines was allowed to pass through the same 2 coins.

I'll post some on the solutions later on, for now just think about it.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-28, 01:27 PM
Tying this into my previous post, maybe your hit points and Fortitude save are a function of the strength of your morphic field?

So wizards and sorcerers are less morphically stable than fighters? Barbarians are the most stable PC class? Does the amount of magic you have access to actually weaken your field? If so, then why does a highly magical dragon have more hit points than Joe goblin? And why do certain magic items have more Hp than nonmagical lower level characters?

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 01:59 PM
Fighters also train in "morphic field reinforcement."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-28, 05:04 PM
Only if it creates the acid by producing a quantity of energy equivalent to the mass of the acid. It doens't have to do it that way, though.

It doesn't matter. The point is that the magical "technology" required to create acid from nowhere must, by any consistent set of laws, be sufficient to kill most people several times over.


If you create a potential at a point, and leave it free to flow wherever it find the path of least resistance, then yes. But that doesn't have to be how lightning bolt spells work. For instance, you could create a point at which there is high electrical potential and a path of ionized air pointing away from you towards your target. In that case, the lightning bolt would follow the conveniently created path away from you, rather than passing through the unionized air between you and the point of potential.

Then you can ionize matter at will, in which case you can just ionize all the atoms in your victim's body directly. Furthermore, you can do that with a zeroeth level spell.


That depends on what I'm trying to do. Maybe I can only teleport atoms or molecules and have no control over their configuration on the macroscopic level- my teleporter is 'out of focus'. In that case, if I try to teleport a hand grenade I end up with a blob of explosive with little specks of iron mixed in. It won't blow up, so I might as well have teleported a corrosive chemical that will have the same effect even if all the molecules end up jumbled with respect to one another.

In which case the best way to use that as a weapon is not to teleport acid onto your target, it's to scramble your target's molecular structure with your demolecularising beam.


Maybe I can't. Maybe one of the 'laws of physics' in a magical setting is that doing things inside a person's body is harder than doing the same things outside a person's body. If we have things like souls and life energy (which, in the D&D setting, we do), maybe the life force interferes with magical effects that would attempt to disrupt it by introducing alien objects on its turf.

In that case why do healing spells work?


Again, that only works if it is as easy for me to work an effect inside a body as outside of it. In the real world, that's basically true; but it doesn't have to be if things like souls and life energy and so on are taken as part of the physical 'background' that makes up the universe.

And if that's the case, spells which *do* affect people directly shouldn't be possible.

You can't create a consistent set of general laws which describe all D&D spells. You really really can't.


I'm not saying that any of this makes good sense in the context of the real-world laws of physics. As far as I can tell, every single spell in the books is physically impossible in the real world. But I can imagine a world with consistent laws of physics that don't work the same way the ones in the real world do. For example, I can imagine a world in which mass is a conserved quantity. In such a world, a lot of things would be different- for starters, the Sun wouldn't shine. But such a universe could easily have internally consistent physical laws that just happen to be different and produce different ones from the ones I know, love, and study.

But that's the point: if you have a world with completely different physical laws, you have a world which looks nothing like the real world. D&D looks an awful lot like the real world.


And I can imagine a world where there are extra physical quantities such as 'life energy' which restrict my ability to perform actions in much the same way that momentum or entropy do in the real world. Energy conservation doesn't explain why I can't pour the milk back out of my coffee if I decide I wanted black coffee after all. Entropy does, because it prohibits certain actions that are possible from the standpoint of energy conservation. Likewise, we can posit a hypothetical universe with additional physical quantities that would prohibit certain actions that appear possible under the laws we know.

But the moment you start pleading "extra, unknown physical quantities" you're basically just waving your hands and pretending.


Again, that is true if and only if all manipulations of equal amounts of mass or energy are equally easy. That doesn't have to be true.

It doesn't have to be, but unless you put something else in its place, you're, once again just waving your hands and pretending.


But you can still have a hypothetical universe with consistent laws of physics that do not match the ones in the real world. What I'm doing is speculating as to what those laws might be, how they might work, and why they might restrict the things we observe them restricting while permitting the things we observe them permitting.

But that's the thing, you're not, you're just saying that they could, in theory exist.

In theory, there could be a physical law, or set of physical laws, which explains why the "level" of a spell is related to nothing except its utility in a party-based combat-heavy RPG. I don't think it's likely though.


I'm trying to do what a real physicist would do if they suddenly found themselves in a world where D&D rules apply. I'm trying to identify underlying explanations for why some things happen and others don't. I'm not trying to say that we can reproduce D&D magic under the laws of physics that obtain in the real world, because we very obviously can't. Magic is completely inexplicable without positing extra physical laws. I certainly agree with you that far.

But you haven't posited any extra physical laws, you've posited a handwave. You've said "and there might be extra physical laws that make it make sense".


Again, assuming that all interactions that use the same amount of matter or energy are equally easy or equally possible, then yes. But one can construct a consistent system of physical laws in which this is not true. For that matter, it's not true in real life. I can pour milk into coffee, but I can't pour the the milk back out of my cafe con leche, even though pouring milk out of cafe con leche doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy.

But you have yet to do this.

You have yet to posit a set of physical laws which would allow one to create a blob of acid from nowhere without also allowing you to kill a person instantly.


In a world where invisible angels actually exist and listen to people, this might be very plausible indeed. It is, for example, quite plausible that I might do something possible to me if you asked me politely. Angels are nicer than I am, so I see no reason why they would not do something possible to them if you asked them nicely.

"If you ask somebody nicely they might do something to help you" is not a physical law.


No, it isn't. But then, neither is:
"If I throw an positive test charge at a narrow zone of high electrical potential, sometimes it will bounce off the zone and sometimes it will tunnel through the zone."
However, that statement is true; it's a simple description of quantum tunneling and a direct application of well-established laws of quantum mechanics.

Yes, that is exactly my point. An experiment is not a physical law.


The catch is that statement 'sometimes it will and sometimes it won't.' That is not a mathematical statement; it is merely a statement of the possible outcomes. As long as which outcome occurs or the probability of the respective outcomes can be described in general mathematical terms, then you have a physical law (such as Schroedinger's Equation) even if the statement (such as the one I made about positive test charges) isn't a physical law.

Exactly so. But in D&D magic you don't get that. You just get spells.


Is this equally true if I start referencing explicit technologies in the real world?

Yes, and actually that's exactly my point.

Real world technologies are based *on* physical laws, they are not themselves physical laws.


"I can't leave the ground except when I do ." This is a true statement. Is it a physical law?

No.


"Mass is conserved except when one of the following: [insert list of phenomena here] is going on."
This is [I]also a true statement. Is it a physical law?

No.


And if not, then how can we assume conservation of mass for purposes of laboratory chemistry?

Because it's a law in chemistry, not in physics.


And if so, then why isn't:
"Momentum is conserved except when one of the following: is going on."
a physical statement?

Because a physical law cannot include the phrase "except when it isn't".


Why is this true of the D&D universe and not of [I]our universe?

The physical laws in our universe occurred naturally. Nobody invented them arbitrarily in order to allow for a world in which firearms and motorcars existed.


As a hypothesis: maybe living entities have some kind of quantity which is not strictly related to their mass, density, etc. This quantity is a function of how much power that individual creature can possess, where 'power' is defined to include a variety of factors. Perhaps a creature could not sustain itself if it did not contain enough of this vital force to match its power level.

Umm ... so you're saying that "Challenge Rating" is a real, in-setting concept? A measurable "energy"?


The ease of summoning a creature is then dependent on the amount of 'vital force' it contains and not on its mass, density, etc.

Where "Vital Force" is code for "challenge rating"?


You can, of course, argue that 'vital force' could only exist if someone had set out to create a universe with level-balanced summoning spells. But I can equally well argue that 'mass' could only exist if someone had set out to create a universe where matter clumps into large bodies such as stars and planets. There is no known a priori reason why objects must have mass, or why they bend space in such a way as to act as if they have mass. We merely observe that they do have mass, and move on from there.

The difference is that "matter clumps into large bodies" does not directly contribute to the game balance of games set in the real world. "Creatures possess a vital force proportional to their Challenge rating" absolutely does.


Such as "Objects move in accordance with the law of gravity except when other physical forces such as electrostatic forces are affecting them?"

Umm ... then they still move in accordance with the law of gravity.


That statement is true- objects which are not interacting with electric, magnetic, or nuclear fields will move in accordance with the law of gravity. Whereas the electrons in a cathode-ray tube do not move in accordance with the law of gravity; they move in accordance with the combined effects of both the law of gravity and the electrostatic forces within the tube.

So they are, in fact, moving in accordance with the law of gravity, which sort of undermines your entire point.


Why can't there be similar exceptions in a hypothetical system of physics that describes D&D, such as:
"Momentum is conserved but it is possible to transfer momentum from one distant object to another distant object through 'spooky action at a distance' under the following conditions ."

Insert the list, and I'll tell you how you can use the same methods to blow up Cormyr.


And yet, in the real world recipes can be [I]explained by physics, or by physics as applied in chemistry. I can explain why I need to follow the recipe to make the cake in terms of the general laws chemistry. Why is it a priori impossible to explain why I need to follow the recipe to make a fireball in terms of the general 'laws of D&D physics'?

You can't derive a recipe from rice pudding from the laws of physics, you really can't.

Prove me wrong.


Yes, but in any actual case where you apply them to a scenario with binary outcomes such as "electron passing through the barrier or bouncing off the barrier", it eventually boils down to fixed probabilities of X and 1-X.

No, it boils down to strictly defined probabilities.


In principle, one could do the same things with binary outcomes such as "momentum conserved or not conserved."

One could, but one would be wrong.


Does this mean that detectors and electrons do not obey the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics cannot be deduced by observing the laws of physics, or that you meant some other, third thing which I can't deduce from your statement? If it's either of the first two things, then I know some people who will be very disappointed indeed, because they've wasted a lot of time and money trying to deduce the laws of physics by examining results found using detectors.

I am saying that an experiment is not a law of physics, nor can a law of physics be stated with reference to an experiment. Physical laws are general, not specific.

The laws of D&D physics cannot use the terms "fireball" or "tenser's" or "magic missile", those are specific, not general concepts.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-28, 05:24 PM
It doesn't matter. The point is that the magical "technology" required to create acid from nowhere must, by any consistent set of laws, be sufficient to kill most people several times over.

"Any" consistent set of laws? How about if the spell simply pulls one unit of d3-level acid from the Elemental Plane of Acid? The cantrip is only powerful enough to manage one unit of d3-level acid. Modifying the spell to summon fire would instead summon one unit of d3-level fire from the Elemental Plane of Fire. The much stronger spell Fireball summons [caster level] units (no greater than ten) of d6-level fire condensed into the tiny bead which is tossed at the target. Acid Arrow summons two units of d4-level acid which is also slightly modified to be stickier than usual.

dungeon_munky
2007-01-28, 10:40 PM
A problem here being that the conjurer who has given up evocation as a school can no longer summon fire from its elemental plane, although able to call monsters from there and travel there with ease. Another thing- elemental planes seem to me as though they are unexplainable by physics, so calling things from there really isnt obeying the laws of physics.

oriong
2007-01-28, 10:45 PM
Yeah the 'summoning stuff' doesn't really work. Teleportation and summoning are descrete and specific abilities in D+D, they are not an explanation for other spell effects.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-29, 03:37 AM
Off topic:

Dungeon Munky, I know where your quote comes from. I didn't accept the gifts and the only one who suffered was the source of the quote. Well, him and Imoen, and no one cares about Imoen.

On topic: What if Z-space is introduced? Y'know, that pseudo-science thing from Animorphs that conveneintly eliminates the need for anything to follow the law of conservation of mass/energy? Does that help at all?

What about the tesseract?

Wehrkind
2007-01-29, 03:58 AM
I can pour milk into coffee, but I can't pour the the milk back out of my cafe con leche, even though pouring milk out of cafe con leche doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy.

It violates entropy. You can not get order from disorder without applying energy (i.e. you could make a machine that separates the two out potentially) and that energy has to come from the creation of entropy somewhere else. That's the same reason you can't throw an egg against a wall and have it happen to go back together after it hits the floor.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-29, 06:38 AM
"Any" consistent set of laws? How about if the spell simply pulls one unit of d3-level acid from the Elemental Plane of Acid? The cantrip is only powerful enough to manage one unit of d3-level acid. Modifying the spell to summon fire would instead summon one unit of d3-level fire from the Elemental Plane of Fire. The much stronger spell Fireball summons [caster level] units (no greater than ten) of d6-level fire condensed into the tiny bead which is tossed at the target. Acid Arrow summons two units of d4-level acid which is also slightly modified to be stickier than usual.

Two things:

Firstly, the problem is that "damage" in D&D doesn't actually correlate to anything physical, it's an abstract game mechanic. "D3 level" acid is no more corrosive than "D6-level" acid. It just does more of the arbitrary concept called "damage".

Secondly, that's not a physical law. "Conjures from the plane of acid" is pure magic-speak.

Dervag
2007-01-29, 07:07 AM
I think, in D&D at least, as mentioned previously, the key difference between physics and magic is that physics works for everyone, and magic is only workable for a few classes. A mage can pick up a wand of magic missile and use it, but a cleric can't. A gun, on the other hand, is usable by anyone shown the steps, whether they understand it or not.But what if using a wand of magic missile is the D&D world equivalent of using a CAD program to design a piece of machinery? Anyone can do that in principle, but in practice it takes training and experience in engineering to do it.

In theory anyone can get the XP to become a magic-using class and then use a wand of magic missile quite effectively. But you have to learn how to activate it before you can use it. That's not an uncommon restriction in real life. There is almost certainly more to spells than the gestures and words. I suspect that you have to have the right brainwave pattern or be breathing properly as you intone the key phrase or something like that.


That is the problem with even creating a system of physics that works for D&D: the system is not internally consistent with how we understand physical laws to work. That is to say, we define physical laws to mean a result will always occure given certain circumstances, where as in D&D some things are limited from working based on your "level" and "class" (there was an example from another thread about how no matter how much studying you do as a fighter, you don't get more ranks in knowledge until you kill something.)Unless you get roleplaying XP, which can theoretically happen at any time.

Of course, the same is true of any other class. In D&D, using the rules as written, the most expedient way to get increased ranks in skills is to go on adventures, even if the adventure doesn't have anything direct to do with the skills you're improving. It's annoying, and it's a very good reason to come up with training time requirements, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics so much as it violates the rules of human psychology and sociology.

As for the in-game laws of physics being nightmarishly complex, maybe so. But some of those laws might be relatively simple, allowing wizards and others to deduce some basic applications therefrom:
"If I do this, that happens; the relationship of that to this can be described like so, so if I do this five times fast while spinning twice around counterclockwise and chanting the Song of Fire, a fireball should shoot out of my palm...
"*BOOM* Hey, it works!"


It doesn't matter. The point is that the magical "technology" required to create acid from nowhere must, by any consistent set of laws, be sufficient to kill most people several times over...[goes on to demonstrate that this is true for a variety of matter-manipulation techniques] Again, all this assumes that working magic on a body is as easy as working it on a pile of rocks or a kettle full of water. That doesn't have to be true in a world where things like souls and life energy exist.


In that case why do healing spells work?Because they work with the morphic field, rather than against it. My 'morphic field potential' points away from my being a dead body or a pile of goo and towards my being a living, breathing person. So if somebody casts a spell and pumps Positive Material Plane energy into my body, the morphic field will start lapping it up like crazy and use it to reconstruct my body.

Conversely, if somebody starts pumping Negative Material Plane energy into my body, the result is precisely equivalent to pumping an equal amount of Positive energy out of my body, causing me harm equal (in some abstract sense) to the good done me by a healing spell.

Perhaps the 'morphic field' is simply a standing reservoir of positive energy.


And if that's the case, spells which *do* affect people directly shouldn't be possible.Sure they can be, provided that they don't attack the morphic field by disrupting my physical form, or that they are powerful/complex enough to bypass or suppress it.


You can't create a consistent set of general laws which describe all D&D spells. You really really can't.Yes. You said that. But I intend to keep trying because it's fun. I wouldn't be a physics major if I didn't like doing stuff like this, and I am a physics major.


But the moment you start pleading "extra, unknown physical quantities" you're basically just waving your hands and pretending.Well, we are talking about a roleplaying game here...

D&D contains a LOT of phenomena which simply do not exist in the real world. It's simple common sense to conclude that those phenomena can only be explained by physical factors that are not present in the real world, or that have no effect on the real world.


It doesn't have to be, but unless you put something else in its place, you're, once again just waving your hands and pretending.What, like the way physicists are just 'waving their hands and pretending' when they point out that entropy makes it easy to pour milk into coffee and impossible to pour the milk back out of the coffee?


But that's the thing, you're not, you're just saying that they could, in theory exist.Give me access to the D&D universe so I can perform experiments on it and a budget sufficient to fund those experiments, and I would try to come up with physical laws describing it. Otherwise, all I can do is speculate.


But you haven't posited any extra physical laws, you've posited a handwave. You've said "and there might be extra physical laws that make it make sense".On the contrary, I definitely posited at least one extra physical law (the morphic field). I can't come up with equations describing it, because I can't gather experimental data on it under controlled conditions. But that doesn't mean I didn't posit it, or that it isn't an internally consistent physical law.

It's a hypothesis, and one I can't do much with. But since the whole debate is about a fantasy universe, I don't think it's fair to expect more than that.


But you have yet to do this.

You have yet to posit a set of physical laws which would allow one to create a blob of acid from nowhere without also allowing you to kill a person instantly.Actually, I did, but you weren't listening.

At least, I posited a law which explains why something could be capable of conjuring acid from nowhere you can see and yet not be capable of killing a person by scrambling their internal structure. I can't come up with an explanation for how to actually conjure up the acid, because I have absolutely no idea how D&D conjurers do that. I can't observe them doing it because they don't exist. So I can't come up with a procedure for doing it that explains how they do it, even though I can posit an explanation for why they can do that and not do other things.


"If you ask somebody nicely they might do something to help you" is not a physical law.Certainly not, and I didn't say it was. But it doesn't violate any laws of physics, either. If there are invisible angels buzzing around, and those angels are capable of doing things, then asking those angels to do those things is a reasonable way to get those things done.


Yes, that is exactly my point. An experiment is not a physical law.I do not see the source of your complaint here.


Exactly so. But in D&D magic you don't get that. You just get spells.No, you just get spells. I get an urge to find some kind of underlying mechanism that explains and justifies the bizarre and quirky array of ways in which those spells behave.


Yes, and actually that's exactly my point.

Real world technologies are based *on* physical laws, they are not themselves physical laws.Let's imagine an alien who is unfamiliar with the technologies and physical laws of our universe. This alien asks: "if airplanes can fly from one part of the Earth to another, why can't they fly from Earth to Mars?"

Structurally, this question is very similar to your original question: "if you can conjure a blob of acid to injure someone, why can't you conjure it inside their skull and dissolve their brain instantly?" I'm not saying that those questions are equally well (or ill) founded, but they are structural parallel. Both you and the alien are asking questions about why it is possible for us to use a certain technology in a certain way and not in another certain way.

In the case of the alien asking questions about airplanes, the answer is quite simple. Airplanes depend on the difference of air pressure between the upper and lower surface of an airfoil that is moving relative to the surrounding air. Take away the air, and an airplane can't fly. So we can't use our airplane to travel under the ocean or in outer space.

This answer follows very logically from the real-world laws of physics, the nature of air, and the structure of airplanes.

In the case of you asking questions about acid-conjuring spells, there may be a similarly simple answer that follows very logically from the D&D-world laws of physics, the structure of acid conjuring spells, and the nature of the place you're getting the acid from. I don't know what the answer is precisely, because I don't know any more about acid conjuring than the hypothetical alien knows about airplanes. But I can speculate, and that's what I'm trying to do here.


Because it's a law in chemistry, not in physics.


Because a physical law cannot include the phrase "except when it isn't".Such as "an object at rest relative to its surroundings remains at rest relative to its surroundings except when acted on by an outside force?"

If that isn't a physical law, then Newton must have been wasting a lot of time. Would it only be a physical law to you if it went:
"an object at rest relative to its surroundings always remains at rest relative to its surroundings"
or
"an object at rest relative to its surroundings never remains at rest relative to its surroundings?"
Because both those statements are blatantly false.

In fact, any colloquial (non-equation) statement of most physical laws will contain 'except when it isn't' statements. An object at rest remains at rest... except when it doesn't, because something pushed on it. An object in motion remains in motion...except when something slows it down. Mass is conserved except when it isn't.

The key to these statements is that I can actually specify when a given physical law isn't the whole picture. I can come up with a list of reasons why an object at rest would not remain in rest, or when mass would not be conserved. This isn't just a 'maybe, maybe not' statement.


The physical laws in our universe occurred naturally. Nobody invented them arbitrarily in order to allow for a world in which firearms and motorcars existed.Prove it, or explain why you don't have to prove it.


Umm ... so you're saying that "Challenge Rating" is a real, in-setting concept? A measurable "energy"?
Where "Vital Force" is code for "challenge rating"?Maybe. Why not? D&D characters apparently live in a universe where "Challenge Rating" has real consequences. Killing things with higher challenge ratings makes them stronger; summoning things with higher challenge ratings is harder. So maybe there really is some measurable quantity applicable to D&D lifeforms that corresponds to the 'challenge rating'. Maybe, if we were doing experiments in a D&D world, we'd find that we could measure the 'challenge rating' of creatures the same way we can measure their mass or temperature.


The difference is that "matter clumps into large bodies" does not directly contribute to the game balance of games set in the real world. "Creatures possess a vital force proportional to their Challenge rating" absolutely does.And this is a problem why?


Umm ... then they still move in accordance with the law of gravity.

So they are, in fact, moving in accordance with the law of gravity, which sort of undermines your entire point.No it doesn't. My entire point was that you can no longer use the law of gravity to completely describe their motion. If you try to predict the action of your TV set without taking the laws of electrostatics into consideration, using only the law of gravity, you will fail every single time. The law of gravity isn't enough to explain the behavior of matter under TV set conditions.

So if somebody who applied your style of thinking to a description of a cathode ray tube in 1750, before the development of the laws of electrostatics, they'd be saying:
"We'll never come up with physical laws to describe that system! Look at it, it's completely nonphysical. It doesn't obey the law of gravity at all. Clearly somebody must have made up a hypothetical universe with laws of physics designed specifically to make this system work. I mean, come on, what the heck is this weird 'electric charge' thing supposed to be? It's a completely arbitrary hand-waving quantity with no basis in reality!"


You can't derive a recipe from rice pudding from the laws of physics, you really can't.If I knew how to make rice pudding, I could explain why the laws of physics require me to do certain things when preparing a rice pudding. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make rice pudding in the first place.

But let's take an example of something I know more about than I know about rice pudding. You can derive a recipe for a nuclear bomb from the laws of physics; we know this because a bunch of men wandered off into the desert and did it about sixty-five years ago.

Quantum mechanics describes and governs the interaction probability between an atomic nucleus and a passing neutron. You can do a bunch of complicated calculations to show that some nuclei will absorb more neutrons than others. Therefore, you put cadmium rods or graphite blocks in your atomic pile. Otherwise, it goes mildly boom (and I do mean mildly, because you don't get a mushroom cloud).

Similarly, I can show that to get a chain reaction where, on average, each nucleus fissioned by a neutron will cause more than one nucleus to fission, I need the density of uranium nuclei to be in excess of a certain critical threshold. I can even calculate this threshold. I can likewise calculate the size of a block of fissile material needed to make sure that a sufficient portion of the emitted neutrons are absorbed to cause fission.

Oops. It looks like I can't just assemble the block of fissile material normally. Looking at my calculations, it is clear that if I try to amass a critical mass of fissile material by normal means, it will blow up in a small way long before I get enough to trigger a full chain reaction. So I'm going to need to do something weird and clever with shaped charges and clockwork to slap my 'safe' subcritical masses or my 'safe' hollow shell of uranium into an 'unsafe' critical mass at the moment of detonation.

Let's see... given the known paramters of the explosives, how do I want the charges to look? Tum te tum te tum...

Keep at it long enough and you have a working technology, with the method of making it work derived directly from the laws of physics. And all this without needing laws of physics designed aghead of time to make your technology work.


One could, but one would be wrong.Prove it, or explain why you don't have to prove it.


I am saying that an experiment is not a law of physics, nor can a law of physics be stated with reference to an experiment. Physical laws are general, not specific.As far as I can tell, you don't consider it to be a physical law unless it's offered in the form of an equation. I can only give equations to describe experimental data, and I don't have experimental data on the D&D universe. So as far as I can tell, your complaint is that I can't come up with, say, an equation that describes the interaction between the morphic field and magical forces that would otherwise lead to the introduction of foreign matter within the area that the morphic field is acting on.

OK, fine. You're right, I can't do that, because I can't do controlled experiments on it because it doesn't exist. It's difficult to do scientific-paper quality experimental studies on things that don't exist.


The laws of D&D physics cannot use the terms "fireball" or "tenser's" or "magic missile", those are specific, not general concepts.OK, fine. I don't use those terms, or at least I haven't yet.

Jorkens
2007-01-29, 07:23 AM
Real world technologies are based *on* physical laws, they are not themselves physical laws.
You describe spells and magic items as being 'magical technologies' but claim that they aren't based on physical laws. I agree with your arguments that "aeroplanes fly" isn't a physical law and "wizards who've just cast 'fly' fly" isn't a physical law, they're both descriptions of pieces of technology. But in the real world, technologies work because of the laws of physics not instead of them. We don't have laws of physics that describe a world in which people cannot fly and then a piece of technology called an aeroplane or a fly spell that lets you make an exception, we have laws of physics of which one consequence is that aeroplanes can fly.


I am saying that an experiment is not a law of physics, nor can a law of physics be stated with reference to an experiment. Physical laws are general, not specific.
I would say that physical laws are as general as possible and that more general = better. But if you're in a world which, as you say, can't be consistantly described by general laws, then I'd say that you're in a world that's described by some nasty complicated not-very-general laws of physics, not in a world where there are no laws of physics.


The laws of D&D physics cannot use the terms "fireball" or "tenser's" or "magic missile", those are specific, not general concepts.
No, but if the most general explanation of how fire can end up being somewhere includes a description of the process of casting Fireball then that's the most general explanation of how fire can get to be somewhere. So either you're going to have laws of physics that describe specific recipes, which is a bit ugly, or you're going to have laws of physics that deny that Fireballs can occur, which is wrong, or you're going to give up and say that you have no idea what's going to happen, which is wrong if you know how Fireball is cast. I'd choose the first of these.

Btw, if we mention Schroedinger's Catgirl, do we get some sort of feedback loop?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-29, 08:54 AM
You describe spells and magic items as being 'magical technologies' but claim that they aren't based on physical laws. I agree with your arguments that "aeroplanes fly" isn't a physical law and "wizards who've just cast 'fly' fly" isn't a physical law, they're both descriptions of pieces of technology. But in the real world, technologies work because of the laws of physics not instead of them. We don't have laws of physics that describe a world in which people cannot fly and then a piece of technology called an aeroplane or a fly spell that lets you make an exception, we have laws of physics of which one consequence is that aeroplanes can fly.

Exactly, but the thing is that those same laws of physics allow all sorts of other things, like rockets and firearms.

Real world technology all stems from the same physical laws. D&D spells all stem from the brain of a game designer who wanted particular effects to work in their world.

Logic
2007-01-29, 08:59 AM
Anyone have a Cat-girl bodycount yet?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-29, 09:02 AM
As for the in-game laws of physics being nightmarishly complex, maybe so. But some of those laws might be relatively simple, allowing wizards and others to deduce some basic applications therefrom:
"If I do this, that happens; the relationship of that to this can be described like so, so if I do this five times fast while spinning twice around counterclockwise and chanting the Song of Fire, a fireball should shoot out of my palm...
"*BOOM* Hey, it works!"


And again, this is all hypothetical.


Again, all this assumes that working magic on a body is as easy as working it on a pile of rocks or a kettle full of water. That doesn't have to be true in a world where things like souls and life energy exist.

But if it isn't, healing spells wouldn't work.


Because they work with the morphic field, rather than against it. My 'morphic field potential' points away from my being a dead body or a pile of goo and towards my being a living, breathing person. So if somebody casts a spell and pumps Positive Material Plane energy into my body, the morphic field will start lapping it up like crazy and use it to reconstruct my body.

"Morphic field" is just another word for "magic pixie dust".


Conversely, if somebody starts pumping Negative Material Plane energy into my body, the result is precisely equivalent to pumping an equal amount of Positive energy out of my body, causing me harm equal (in some abstract sense) to the good done me by a healing spell.

And how do either of these things stop me rearranging your atoms with a zero-level spell?


Perhaps the 'morphic field' is simply a standing reservoir of positive energy.

In which case, since positive energy does not interact with any other form of magic in any way (provable: get a cleric to try and turn a spell) I can remove your brain with an Acid Splash.


Sure they can be, provided that they don't attack the morphic field by disrupting my physical form, or that they are powerful/complex enough to bypass or suppress it.

So why doesn't the morphic field stop sword blows?


Yes. You said that. But I intend to keep trying because it's fun. I wouldn't be a physics major if I didn't like doing stuff like this, and I am a physics major.

But you're not trying, you're handwaving.

To try properly, start from the ground up.


Well, we are talking about a roleplaying game here...

My point is you're not providing a theory, you're pretending to provide a theory, you're pleading Trek Fields.


D&D contains a LOT of phenomena which simply do not exist in the real world. It's simple common sense to conclude that those phenomena can only be explained by physical factors that are not present in the real world, or that have no effect on the real world.

And it is also common sense to conclude that these physical factors would result in a world that looked nothing like the real world.


What, like the way physicists are just 'waving their hands and pretending' when they point out that entropy makes it easy to pour milk into coffee and impossible to pour the milk back out of the coffee?

A very, very different thing.


Give me access to the D&D universe so I can perform experiments on it and a budget sufficient to fund those experiments, and I would try to come up with physical laws describing it. Otherwise, all I can do is speculate.

Since it's a fictional world, you can do all the experiments you like, just use the game mechanics.


On the contrary, I definitely posited at least one extra physical law (the morphic field). I can't come up with equations describing it, because I can't gather experimental data on it under controlled conditions. But that doesn't mean I didn't posit it, or that it isn't an internally consistent physical law.

Your morphic field isn't a physical law, it's a fudge. It's a trek field. You might as well just say "god did it".


At least, I posited a law which explains why something could be capable of conjuring acid from nowhere you can see and yet not be capable of killing a person by scrambling their internal structure.

But that law was "you can conjure acid from nowhere but you can't kill a person by scrambling their internal structure".

Anyway, I have a class to teach.

Jorkens
2007-01-29, 09:17 AM
Exactly, but the thing is that those same laws of physics allow all sorts of other things, like rockets and firearms.

But if they didn't we'd be obliged to call it a law of physics that things that are adequately like aeroplanes can fly. It's not a very good law, and we might keep looking to see if there's a more general explanation that had some other applications, but if we don't accept it as a law we'd have to leave our laws at 'heavier than air objects can't fly' and claim that aeroplanes aren't affected by the laws of physics. Or claim that there are no rules, which would be clearly untrue since aeroplanes can consistantly fly and rocks consistantly can't.

Logic
2007-01-29, 09:31 AM
Airplanes fly because of the basic principle of lift.
The concept is simpler than most magical physics explanations.
The 4 primary factors in flight are:
Lift. Thrust. Gravity. Drag.

*Logic is an aircraft mechanic.

oriong
2007-01-29, 11:37 AM
The problems with the Morphic Field theory:

A) It's inconsistent with what spells actually do. At first level spells like enlarge person is already making major changes to the target's physical structure (the fact that this spell is a complete biological impossibility doesn't help the magic + physics arguement). Even if you assume that it's possible only because the target remains the same shape (just increasing in size) then by second level complex and major biological alterations are occuring in the the form of spells like Bear's Endurance for instance.

This spell affects targets other than the caster, and makes complex and significant changes to the target's muscle and bone structure (hit points), cardiovascular and respiratory system (endurance), immune system (resistance to poison and disease) and apparently the morphic field itself (other fortitude saves). The ability to make these changes should, logically, lend itself much easier to doing the opposite: killing the target stone dead.

Another example, this time using magical force applied to a target. The flight spell and the telekinesis spell. Telekinesis is two levels higher than flight, lasts for 1 round per level or less, and requires constant focus and concentration from the caster. Flight on the other hand lasts 10 times as long, only requires as much concentration as walking, allows the subject to move 6 times as fast and has an infinite weight capacity (while telekinesis is restricted to a maximum of 375 pounds).



B) the morphic field is inconsistently represented in game. Let's assume that the morphic field is represented by your saving throws against abilities. If this were the case it would be a single save. The most obvious is Fortitude, since it is what allows you to resist effects like Polymorph after all, which seems to be the most obvious defiance of the morphic field. But then, logically, all changes to the target via magic would be resisted by Fortitude saves. But this isn't the case, many, many changes are Will resisted. These are very clearly two different methods of 'stopping' the effect but they both apply more or less arbitrarily.

Also, reasonably the morphic field should resist ANY modification of the target through magic: whether this involves heating them, moving them, changing their shape, growing them, shrinking them, etc. However, this is rarely the case. While Polymorph and Telekinesis both allow saving throws to resist the effects, something like fireball does not. It does allow a save, but it is explicitly due to evasion and avoidance rather than resistance. Now, you might say that this is because fireball is merely a magically-produced but still physical effect. This isnt' the case, fireball allows spell resistance, it's hedged out of antimagic auras, and golems are immune to it. It is damage induced by direct magical modification of the victims. It should be resisted just as well by the morphic field as the kinetic energy of telekinesis.


C) The Morphic Field has no clear source: The morphic field can't be exclusive to living creatures. There are living creatures (namely plants) that don't have it, they're treated as objects. Undead, constructs and elementals all have the same resistances as humans too, but are clearly unliving. The field has nothing to do with positive or negative energy either.

The only thing that is exclusive to the concept of the morphic field is the idea of Object and Creature. The sole difference between those is the possession of a Wisdom and Charisma score. So, by default, the field would have to come from one of these. The wisdom score does help in some cases, but many, many examples of forceful alteration of a subject are resisted by fortitude which clearly has nothing at all to do with the field. Charisma is never used except in the single case of the Chaos Beast which is interestingly enough the most appropraite example of a 'morphic field' idea. But it never sees use elsewhere.