Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Alternate Universe
Message-ID: <2075@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 11:31:04 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2075
Posted: Tue Mar 25 11:31:04 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Mar-86 08:16:07 EST
References: <10800018@uiucdcsb> <2036@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1000@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 20

>|The immediate answer is, you've broken charge conservation, so
>|atoms would blow apart, etc.  A better answer is, it isn't
>|permissible to postulate arbitrary changes like this.  Charge
>|conservation is linked to other physical principles; everything
>|is deeply intertwingled (to quote Ted Nelson).

I stand by my previous statement.  Rather than get into an interminable
arguing match with Bruehl, let me point out that he has a rather
different view of what physical laws are.  To me, no single aspect
of physical reality is independent of all the others; a complete
theory has to interlink all aspects of physical behavior.  This
means that if one contemplates a modification to charge conservation,
as proposed, then the rest of the theoretical structure is also
affected.  It may even be possible that such a change would result
in an irreparable inconsistency in the overall structure.  It is
incumbent on the proposer of a theoretical change to reconcile it
with the framework of known laws; it's a waste of time trying to
analyze the effect of breaking a known symmetry out of context.

Accuracy of measurement has nothing to do with my point.