research: honestly wasn't sure what to do here. Mostly going off of the physics classes I had in college and my general knowledge of science. I don't think there are sites that tell you how *not* to break the laws of physics. I asked something similar in Yahoo Answers, but didn't get anything useful.
I'm basically trying to figure out how to have the magic I want, while bending/breaking as few natural laws as possible.
The only magic in this universe is a set of magical items usually called "relics", made by people called "distillers". Distillers transform people into magical objects. The objects vary in size and properties--for example, someone might become a sword that will always stay sharp, an inkwell that refills itself, a bow that always hits its target, or even something odd like a pot that turns any liquid poured into it into banana custard.
Now, I'm pretty sure I'm throwing entropy right out the window, or at least making it very unhappy. And I have a reasonable handwave for conservation of matter/energy (excess matter becomes dust when someone is distilled into something smaller than a human body, extra matter for things like ever-renewing ink is pulled out of the air, matter-to-energy conversion or absorbed heat or kinetic energy for motive force, et cetera). But, other than the distilled relics, the universe operates on basically the same physical laws as ours.
Are there any other natural laws I'm in danger of breaking, with magical objects that mostly either transform one type of matter into another, or move themselves around without outside motive force, or (to varying degrees) read minds, adjust probability, or the like? Any other categories of magical objects you can think of that wouldn't make scientists cry too hard? Etc.
Also, any thoughts on whether the irregularity of physical laws with regard to the relics would make it hard for people of scientific bent *in* that world to develop science/figure out scientific laws, or would they just decide that relics were an exception to those laws? I'm thinking it wouldn't necessarily affect, or might even slightly improve, very early science (eg "When I do A, B happens"), but might impede the development of the idea that there are inherent, underlying rules to the universe.