From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <87ofj9kvpa.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <3C58DFD7.33AFB32B@null.net>, <87d6zqsww6.fsf@becket.becket.net>, <3C5A091B.5EE62DB0@null.net>
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [9fans] Getting started in Plan9 - help
Date: Fri,  1 Feb 2002 16:41:59 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4aaec3de-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:

> What I am saying is that if parity was *not* conserved, the
> theoretical analysis behind the famous experiments (on weak
> decay) did not demonstrate it, due to not accounting for the
> non-vectorial nature of the c.p. in the form of Maxwell's laws
> used in the analysis.

Gotcha.  Where can I read about it?

> I have my own reasons to think that mirror symmetry *has* to
> be a fundamental property of physics and that any asymmetry
> is environmentally induced.

Sure, I think that's why the original result was so
counter-intuitive.  There are profound metaphysical reasons to insist
on certain physical symmetries.