> On the other hand, if the laws of physics are invariant under reflections then they are also invariant under rotations because you can make rotations out of r

> On the other hand, if the laws of physics are invariant under reflections then they are also invariant under rotations because you can make rotations out of reflections. So you could say that conservation of angular momentum is the corresponding conservation law. This is an interesting idea, but, I think, too weak. It is true that every rotation is a composition of two reflections, but there's such an important difference between rotations (orientation-preserving) and reflections (orientation-reversing) that I think one shouldn't say that invariance under the former implies anything about invariance under the latter.