|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 16, 2007 20:18:47 GMT -5
Whitelightertony then adopted a different tactic. He questioned why this sudden focus on Piper's powers and the need for exact precision when describing them.
But vandergraafk, you yourself have pointed out how characters on Charmed have inaccurately referred to Piper's ability to freeze as the power "to freeze time." We all know that Piper doesn't literally freeze time in the way that the Angels of Destiny can....but that doesn't mean others won't describe such a power based on erroneous frames of reference. Many warlocks and demons have followed the example of Melinda Warren's misdescription, describing Piper's power as the ability "to freeze time."
So if Paige says, "Piper combusted that cabinet"...she basically means the same thing as if she were to say "Piper blew up that cabinet" or "Piper exploded that cabinet."
I really don't see why this one supernatural power of Piper's deserves greater referential scrutiny than descriptions of any other witch power in the Charmedverse.
vandergraafk replied thusly:
I guess, whitelightertony, that I can forgive Paige, et al for misconstruing powers on an everyday basis. What I have a problem with is two-fold. First, there is a much cleaner way to describe Piper's powers that avoids all the confusion that you have alluded to. Second, in the official companion volume 2, Piper's powers are described exactly as I have described them and how they were described in Totally Charmed. Why should we rely on an inaccurate source of information - the Wikipedia - that is then regurgitated - and made to sound authoritative - by placing it in Charmed magazine. An inaccuracy twice removed does not remove the stench. It merely metastasizes it.
Whitelightertony confessed that he was not responsible for the Wikipedia entry and stated his long-term use of the word combustion:
Well, honestly, I've been referring to Piper's power as "combustion" ever since late-Season 3 (when "Exit Strategy" first aired).
And no, I'm not the one who created that much-despised Wikipedia entry.
Ljones apparently had no problem with the Wikipedia entry and chided whitelightertony for his description of the entry as much despised:
What's wrong with Wikipedia's description of Piper's second ability as molecular combustion? Which is how it looked like when she first used it in late Season 3. The flames came later.
Whitelightertony backpedaled a bit, but shifted the focus back to what was seen on Charmed:
There's nothing wrong with it. Combustion, explosion, blowing up....it all refers to the same thing.
And I think the flames are a byproduct of a demon being vanquished, when Piper combusts it.
A closet member of William Safire's language police, vandergraafk offered this terse reply:
Everything! It's sloppy! Let's be precise!
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 16, 2007 20:26:03 GMT -5
Maracev questioned whether precision is possible at all. Whitelightertony weighed in as well. First, Maracev offered this assessment:
Can we be precise about something like orbing? What the heck is that anyway? Can we be precise about how on earth does Leo heal clothing items as well when he heals someone's wound? Can we be precise about how is it that Prue can create a copy of herself or how is it that she can move things with her mind? Why do we have to be so precise specifically about Piper's powers when we have no idea how the other ones work?
Whitelightertony posed this question:
For that matter, how come the Avatars use smoking as a form of teleportation in one episode, and then suddenly use flashing as their main form of teleportation in another.
And how come Paige's glamouring power switches from a clean morphing effect on her face into a cheesy burst of bright light when she glamours, between S6 and S7?
How can we be "precise" and "consistent" about what's seen and heard on this show, when the writers can't even do it?
vandergraafk replied to whitelightertony as follows:
I think we can agree that how we describe Piper's powers - whether it's the nonsensical molecular combustion or the more sensible particle acceleration - we are talking about abstractions. Yes, we see evidence of what Piper does and the blasts may vary from season to season or even show to show. But the why of what she does is the same. It's invariate. Thus, we can be as precise and as consistent as we can be.
As for orbing or any of the other special effects seen, we all know that these effects changed from season to season. Look at how Leo orbed in Sight Unseen and compare that with later orbs. Even the musical accompaniment changed. If I were attempting to define orbing in terms of what is seen, then obviously I would have great difficulty pinning something down with any degree of precision.
On the other hand, if I am only talking about the mechanics of orbing, then it really doesn't matter how it's visually represented as long as the discussion remains at an abstract level. For example, orbing involves corporealization and de-corporealization of something, say, a spirit. How exactly Paige, Chris and Wyatt can orb while still retaining their mortal selves is never really explained. Nor is it ever explained how witches and innocents can be orbed about. Perhaps it works like the transporter in Star Trek. The point is: to talk about orbing at this level of abstraction does not require a physical representation.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 16, 2007 20:28:31 GMT -5
A movement toward agreement seemed afoot when whitelightertony offered this point of view:
I guess my point is that it could be argued that Piper's power causes "molecular combustion" as a result of her "particle acceleration." So, when her power has that effect, "combustion" is as accurate enough of a descriptor as "exploding" or "blowing up."
The same way "orbing" is a form of "teleportation" (as are "flashing," "shimmering," "gusting," "sand-blasting," and "smoking")......and "telekinetic orbing" can also be referred to as "transkinesis."
But, vandergraafk was in no mood to compromise:
So, would you rather use the less precise, scientifically mushy term "molecular combustion" that is more likely to raise eyebrows than to enlighten the casual fan? Particle acceleration is a rather precise term that expresses all that we need to know. Particles accelerated to the point where they can no longer remain stable in a state of matter. Their transformation to pure energy is complete. Demons who are impervious to particle acceleration/deceleration must be able to prevent rapid acceleration/deceleration perhaps via a protective shield that diverts whatever force Piper is able to send in their direction.
Maracev, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your challenge earlier. Certainly, precision can only go so far. If there's not enough evidence upon which to base an assessment, there's not a whole lot to do. Or, if the evidence we have is so mutually self-contradictory, there's not much to be salvaged. However, some things can be clarified with a fair degree of precision. Why avoid precision when it can be achieved? For me, molecular combustion is just so vapid as a concept that I shudder when reading it. The very use of the word combustion with molecule is bizarre, especially when in physics and chemistry, the molecule as a unit of analysis is rarely used, if at all. Chemistry deals with valence, ions and atomic structure (among other things). Physics goes even smaller by exploring the sub-atomic particle level. Since energy is a fundamental concept, I can understand that. So, when it is explained to me that Piper's power accelerates particles to such an extent that their stability as matter cannot be maintained, then I can understand this using simple Einsteinian concepts of energy-matter equivalence. Molecular combustion just gives me headaches, ones I don't need!
Ljones saw no reason to compromise either as she commented:
Whitelighter Tony, I see nothing wrong with the term "molecular combustion" to describe Piper's 2nd power. The term seems to fit.
This led vandergraafk to issue the following challenge:
Well, then, tell me in some scientific sense what molecular combustion is. Please, don't soft soap me by telling me that it's like blowing things up or exploding things. It may satisfy you and perhaps others. But it doesn't cut mustard with me.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 16, 2007 20:31:46 GMT -5
Whitelightertony took up the challenge and offered this statement:
But to anyone who's seen Charmed (or even those who haven't), if you refer to Piper's explosions as "combustion," people will most likely know what you mean. And I doubt that most casual viewers really care what we call it.
No, it's not scientifically accurate. But neither is the term "freezing," and we still use that. When Piper "freezes" an object, she doesn't turn it into actual ice (except in "Bride & Gloom," when she was a warlock). But the term works, as a descriptor.
So how is using the term "combustion" any worse than using the term "freezing," when referring to Piper's powers?
Quote:Well, then, tell me in some scientific sense what molecular combustion is.
Accelerating the motion of objects so that their molecules overheat or oxidize, which creates an exploding effect and causes the matter to permanently dematerialize. aka "blowing things up." aka "combustion."
vandergraafk responded with this extended commentary:
Thanks, Whitelightertony, for your response. To aid other fans, I am quoting from your previous post:
"Accelerating the motion of objects so that their molecules overheat or oxidize, which creates an exploding effect and causes the matter to permanently dematerialize. aka "blowing things up."
Compare this with a brief excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica explanation of combustion:
"rapid chemical reaction between substances that is usually accompanied by generation of heat and light in the form of flame. In most cases, oxygen comprises one of the reactants. Other physical phenomena that sometimes occur during combustion reactions are explosion and detonation."
Now, let's discuss the specifics. Combustion is a chemical reaction. In the case of an automobile, a liquid (gasoline) is injected into a cylinder. Both the air inside and the liquid are squeezed as the piston shrinks the available space. A catalyst (a spark from a spark plug) causes the oxygen to flame which causes the gasoline to burn. An explosion is produced. This explosion is contained within the cylinder.
The energy produced from this explosion is used to drive the transmission via a device called a torque converter. If you've ever blown a transmission, you can appreciate the importance of the torque converter. Unless the torque converter functions properly or the gears of the transmission function, the engine can run and run and run with the car standing in place.
Yes, a flame is produced and we can describe the chemical reaction between oxygen and gasoline as an explosion. More or less the same thing happens in an automobile's catalytic converter, where excess gasoline is burned by another chemical reaction. Again, a flame is produced. Unless the catalytic converter is defective, this flame too is not seen since the reaction is contained entirely within the converter.
But, nowhere do we find what whitelightertony describes. An overheating of molecules can, of course, occur. Indeed, it occurs all of the time. This "overheating", if you will, is not a chemical reaction, however. An overheating of molecules is produced by an acceleration of atoms, technically the elementary particles within the atom, within the molecular structure. Heating up the molecule in this way can cause the state of matter to alter. A change in the state of matter can only occur if a sufficient amount of energy (heat) is added to or removed from the object in question. Heating ice turns ice into water. Heating water produces steam (eventually). Superheat the process and you can produce plasma. But, this is not an explosion. It is a naturally occurring process in all of matter.
If you want an explosion, then you are going to have to produce either a chemical reaction or a nuclear reaction. I would be happier if we could just say that Piper bombards matter with subatomic particles causing a nuclear reaction to occur. Of course, I don't know how she does that. But, then again, I don't know how she accelerates/decelerates particles with a flick of her wrists. Visually, it is stunning. Physically, it's probably impossible.
The potions that the sisters make clearly do cause a chemical reaction. Perhaps demons are comprised of some volatile substance (methane gas) that when it comes in contact with this potion or that potion an explosion is induced. But, Piper doesn't do any of that. Her effect, if you will, must be akin to nuclear destabilization. Given enough acceleration of particles, atomic stability is compromised and matter transforms to energy according to E=mc2. How difficult is it to accept and appreciate this?
In short, I may not know how she does it. But, I do understand what happens when she does it. Molecular combustion just does not make any kind of sense at all. What you want to call molecular combustion requires a chemical reaction. And, that's not what Piper does, although in Charmed and Dangerous - after she loses her powers - she tries to replicate her powers by creating a potion that can produce a chemical reaction akin to her own nuclear explosive power! A power of three vanquish must really be a sort of nuclear blast. That's why we see the typcial shock wave emanating from a power of three vanquish!
This is ROCKET SCIENCE! And, I shudder to use the word freeze. When I do, I also put it in qualifying quotation marks. These indicate that I understand that it is a term that is used and abused, but the qualifying quotation marks indicate that I am not using it willingly. Nor am I endorsing its usage!
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 16, 2007 20:34:02 GMT -5
Maybe my argument was carrying the day. Or, was it just frustration that led whitelightertony to offer the following reply:
It's fine if you want to get technical, but the characters on the show use the word "freeze" all the time. And it doesn't appear in quotation marks within the script, either.
Most of us aren't scientists, and we only use our descriptors for the practical purpose of articulating these fictitious, supernatural, magical powers.
Before I could reply, Elder weighed in with this observation:
In a late season three episode, Piper says something that sounds alot like the following line... "Freezing is one thing. Blowing up stuff is something else"
Then there's Leo's line... "Your power of freezing works by slowing down molecules. Now you can speed them up"
Whatever the powers are called, it sounds as if they are both connected to the molecular level.
Vandergraafk answered both in this two part reply:
I am well aware that the characters on the show use it all of the time. In part, that is a reflection of their partial understanding of what it is they're experiencing. Should we confine ourselves to merely repeating their inaccurate understanding? Hardly. Phoebe mischaracterizes Piper's power especially badly in Season 1. This has given rise to the false notion that Piper can "freeze" time.
I know that many of you have accepted - perhaps grudgingly - the notion that Piper cannot "freeze" time. So, why insist on holding onto another equally ridiculous concept: molecular combustion? It's like pregnancy. Either you are expecting or not. There is no halfway. Accept the validity of the argument that Piper cannot "freeze" time, then accept equally the absurdity of "molecular combustion".
This probably seems as if we are having a debate about the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin: infinitely many, by the way! But, let's not forget why this "debate" erupted. I was taken aback at the mumbo jumbo, dressed up as pseudo-science, that appeared in Charmed Magazine under the heading Here Comes the Science Bit ... To spew this garbage as science or science-based or scientifically consistent is not only absurd, it is offensive as well.
Perhaps I am so incensed by this because of the absolute garbage that talk radio air bags spew with respect to their ridiculous, nonsensical description of "evolution". Since they so mischaracterize evolution, it is easy for them to dismiss evolution as so much bunk. Maybe I am a strident opponent of intellectual rubbish so much so that I have the effect of a mosquito: I annoy, cause some pain, but am ultimately so insignificant that I can be dealt with via the prompt application of some sort of bug spray. But, maybe I see one of the values of the internet as an educational tool. Let's try to clarify issues and provide an intelligent forum for discussions. Then, and only then, can the promise of democracy be realized. Otherwise, it's just another outlet for the spewing of toxic waste!
I am reminded of a discussion that broke out a while ago with respect to the good Doctor Williamson who, in Astral Monkey, injects himself with a combination of Halliwell blood and acquires extraordinary powers that eventually drive him insane. Maracev made some pointed comments about the biology involved in the bloodwork upon which this episode was based. As I am little versed in biology/hematology, I couldn't really comment intelligently. I did find the discussion fascinating. It invited me to examine the episode a bit more closely.
I just hope that out of this discussion we will all take Piper's powers a bit more seriously and talk about them a bit more appropriately. Besides, why shouldn't we use the language that the official companion to Charmed uses when it, too, talks about particle acceleration and deceleration. It's official. Wikipedia - and apparently the writer in Charmed magazine who borrowed liberally from Wikipedia without referencing the source - are not. They are not even credible sources!
But, Elder, just because Leo says it's so doesn't make it so. Besides, in science, hardly anyone uses the molecule as a unit of analysis. That's so macro-level! Worse: molecular combustion and molecular immobilization make absolutely no sense! I just cannot understand why there is such resistance to a mode of explanation that makes greater sense, is used by the official companion and is compatible at least with science. (Again, my proviso: I don't know how she does it, but I can at least understand what she does!)
Don't you think that maybe the writers dumbed the concept down for a general audience? Or, is it possible that the writers themselves had no clue about the underlying science?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 16, 2007 12:53:37 GMT -5
A recent article in the New York Times Science Supplement from Tuesday, 13 March 2007 gave me pause and encouraged me to speculate further about Piper's powers. Assuming, as I do, that Piper has the ability to accelerate and decelerate particles, I wonder how she might do this. I worry, as did Albert Einstein, about action at a distance. Though the distances are relatively short, whatever Piper does affects the motion of particles some (short) distance away. As her powers grew, Piper was able to expand the area within which she could decelerate or accelerate particle motion.
In the recent article in the New York Times, it was reported that scientists have confirmed the predicted YORP effect. The YORP effect, an acronym derived from the four scientists who long ago predicted it, predicts that particles without mass, such as light, have enough force to push an asteroid around and possibly spin it so fast that it breaks apart. Last week, two teams of scientists reported that they had observed the YORP effect.
Consider, then, that Piper's magical ability entails the streaming of massless particles from her Charmed aura. These particles travel at the speed of light and have enough momentum and acceleration to excite the particles that constitute demonic auras. This force is strong enough to set the demons into spin, a phenomen readily observed in Charmed, a highly unstable state that causes matter to disintegrate and supernova into a burst of energy.
As for particle deceleration, this remains unexplained. Could it be that the particles streaming from Piper's aura interfere with particles in other magical entitities, as well as Innocents, and cause them to slow down quickly. I don't have an answer yet for this one. Stay tuned!
|
|
|
Post by avallach on Sept 1, 2007 17:49:58 GMT -5
Its been awhile since I last posted. Unfortunately, the "real world" often intrudes on fun activities like posting on a board dedicated to my favorite television show (at least of the 1990s/2000s). Speaking of which, Piper's powers still intrigues me, especially its scope and limits.
I've not been reading the boards, so forgive me if this have already been addressed, but one thing I have noticed throughout the years is that Piper, unlike her sisters, apparently requires her to wave or move her hands when exercising her powers (whether it be freezing or exploding). Prue could squint to bring up her TK, while Paige apparently needs to verbalize the object that she is orbing (sometimes she says the destination..which is puzzling but a topic for another discussion).
Only Piper needs to motion with her hands at the direction of her target? Why is that?
Also, she could only explode a single object (demon) at a time; I cannot think of an example of a mass-explosion of demons; she always knocks them off one at a time. However, she can freeze a roomful of people/demons and other things. Isnt this somewhat inconsistent? Why could she not have the same scope with her explosive power, since both facets of her power relies on molecular acceleration?
Also, it seems like visual contact is also required...another words, she cannot freeze people in another room without visualization. One exception to this was the season 4 episode "Trial by Magic", where Piper waves her hand in the doorway to freeze the jurors without actually looking in. Another possible exception is season 2's "Morality Bites" where in the future an older and more powerful Piper freezes an entire city block (though it was unclear how far-reaching the freeze affect was). So maybe visual contact is not as a stringest requirement as hand motion.
So if Piper can mass-freeze by motioning with her hands, wouldn't it make sense it she can mass-explode as well?
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Sept 7, 2007 11:02:54 GMT -5
Good point all. In Ms. Hellfire, Piper learned to "unfreeze" Bane whilst keeping Barbas in stasis. Perhaps she never massively explodes demons since she has never tried it. Could it be that this power will grow one day so that she can do as you suggest she ought to be able to? If so, this would be symmetry of a sort. Let's see.
Piper "freezes" Chef Moore and later Jeremy. She then "discovers" that she can freeze an entire room. Later still, she learns that eventually she will be able to freeze an entire plaza (Morality Bites) and accomplishes this in Apocalypse Not. In Ms. Hellfire, she learns that she can selectively "freeze". Then, in Sleuthing with the Enemy (Season 3), she learns to "unfreeze" the head of the Zotar. That's one side of the symmetry.
In Exit Strategy, Piper "discovers" her awesome new power, the power to blast objects to pieces. Of course, she is as much scared of this power as she was when she learned that she could "freeze". By All Hell Breaks Loose, Piper has gained confidence and even a small amount of hubris and is "glad" that she has this new found power. As you note, there are things she never fully discovers. She never demonstrates the ability to do as the Source did when he blew up the vase and instanteously froze the outward shooting shards. Nor does she learn to explode things en masse, a skill that would have been quite helpful in Something Wiccan when the Charmed Ones try to lure out the Vampire Queen. Instead, Piper concentrates on blasting individual bats, while Phoebe and Paige try to deal with the legions of others.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Nov 21, 2007 17:26:09 GMT -5
Will I ever come to a complete understanding of Piper's powers? At the moment, I very much doubt this. I am hampered by inadequacies in both the evidence and the explanatory framework I am attempting to employ. However, as I commented in the Charmed Cafe, I definitely reject the notion that her power was akin to temporal stasis?
"You know whitelightertony that I am going to once again dispute Piper's power as the ability to freeze, i.e., to achieve temporal stasis. It was misdescribed as such by Phoebe, the Book of Shadows and Melinda Warren. But even in Season 1, Piper clearly demonstrates that she cannot freeze time: Nicholas does not hear all twelve chimes. So he knows that Piper has slowed down particle motion, not frozen time!" In response, ljones queried me with respect to the Wikipedia notation on Piper's powers. As ljones noted, "The WIKIPEDIA site called Piper's first ability - molecular immobilization. " She wondered whether I agreed.
"Absolutely not! First, a molecule is not a sufficient unit of analysis when dealing with issues involving physics. At best, one needs to work from a sub-atomic level, that is, the particle level. What Piper does perhaps is cause particles to decelerate so that their overall temperature drops to close to absolute zero, but still above transformation of matter into a new state, that is the Bose-Einstein condensate.
Now, exactly why her "victims" do not evince signs of outward frost is interesting, but can be reasonably ignored since we are dealing with fantasy here. Some of her intended "victims" do not freeze: Cole (at times), Baccara and a few others. Perhaps these demons have a way of withstanding the sudden drop in temperature that must accompany particle deceleration when accomplished in this manner.
One could also argue the opposite. That is, it does matter that Piper's victims do not "freeze" in the sense of showing outwards signs of frost. What Piper must do in this scenario is to induce a change in momentum such that moving objects move at such a snail's pace that one barely notices them move in real time. Of course, some demons can overcome the change in momentum by negating the work expended by Piper in inducing the original change. Some counter-force or deflection of the force Piper exerts would be required. This might explain why Piper was unable to blow up Ronin in Sam I Am. Cole had given him the power to deflect the energy emanating from Piper in order to become "immune".
Under the latter scenario, there is no necessity to "freeze" a moving object. One needs only slowdown substantially the motion of some object. However, this changes the unit of analysis from the sub-atomic to the macro-level, that is, to the level of the organism itself. The particles themselves might continue to move at their usual pace, but the organism they constitute cannot overcome the work expended by Piper to put a virtual stop on the targeted object or objects.
One is tempted to look at Piper's power as particle deceleration since her complementary power, particle acceleration, causes sub-atomic particles to speed up to such a high rate of velocity that the ability of matter to remain stable is compromised. Mass turns to energy and an explosion ensues.
Some have tried to explain this by referring to something utterly ridiculous as "molecular combustion", a term about as ridiculous as anyone could come up with. First, it is not combustion in any known sense of that word. Second, molecular points to the wrong unit of analysis. The molecules explode only because the underlying atomic structure is no longer stable enough to be organized as matter. The rapidity of the transformation causes an enormous of amount of energy to be released. Hence, we witness an explosion."
|
|
|
Post by Reality Bites on Nov 25, 2007 6:02:14 GMT -5
Hmm, I would be one tempted to refer to Piper's original power as particle deceleration. It makes the most sense and is complimentary to what her secondary power should be called, particle acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Feb 26, 2008 19:10:17 GMT -5
Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jul 5, 2008 12:51:55 GMT -5
In a private conversation with pubesy, I waxed further on Piper's powers. Prompted by pubesy's query about empty space (see below), I noted the following:
Well, here's where the physicist emerges. As objects slowed down (particles, as it were), the atoms would "devolve" into a Bose-Einstein condensate - as temperatures plunge to near 0 degrees Kelvin.
At the macrolevel, I can't imagine what would happen. How could chemical bonds continue if the energy needed to maintain them is "drained" from the system? And where would the energy go? Into the void? Into Piper? Into ljones? No wonder she needs to vent on a regular basis!
I have always contended that Piper's so-called freezing power is much more difficult to explain in terms of the underlying physics than her explosive power. Admittedly, it is difficult to explain how shaky her arms can cause particles to accelerate, increase the number of collisions and thus break the bonds holding atoms and molecules together. All of that would cause an explosion or implosion as the strong and weak nuclear forces release a tremendous amount of energy. We know that photons have the ability to displace large objects ( So, in some way, Piper must cause a great concentration of photons that imparts momentum to the particles they impact.)
Pubesy noted, also in a private conversation, that "but, think logically - atoms are over 99% "empty space", and the only reason they appear solid is that the neutrons and electrons are moving so fast around the nucleus. molecules are just atoms compounded together.
so if piper could literally "freeze" molecules, she would be freezing the atoms. if you froze the atoms, you would be also freezing the electrons and neutrons.
hence, shouldn't the object frozen almost disappear, as the electrons and neutrons are no longer moving, so you would be able to see that "empty space?" "
|
|