People believed that loss did not exist because energy could not disappear. In the passage network that expanded after the Third Passage Mandate Act, the energy put into the network did not exactly match the energy that arrived. The difference was too small, and at first no consistent direction could be identified. Engineers explained that the equipment had absorbed heat or that the measuring instruments had failed to detect it. Most of those explanations were correct. The equipment grew hot, and the instruments had errors. Recalculation could account for almost all of the shortfall. But not all of it. The engineers called the portion they could not account for a loss.
Physicists objected to the word “loss.” There was no evidence that energy had disappeared from the universe, and they argued that the possibility must remain open that it had taken an unobservable form or moved to a location not yet observed. They maintained that “loss” implied a violation of the laws of nature and that “unidentified conversion quantity” should be used instead. Accountants also objected to the word “loss.” If the missing energy might be recovered in the future, there was no reason to treat it as a current expense. Recorded as a loss, it reduced the rate of return on passage operations. Recorded as energy receivable, it became an asset that would someday return. Engineers agreed to use “unidentified conversion quantity,” while accountants entered it in their ledgers as energy receivable.
Yet some of the light emitted by stars failed to reach its destination, computing devices consumed more energy than expected, and the thermal differences within storage facilities gradually diminished. There was no evidence that energy had been completely annihilated, but the energy available for use by the civilization of the time continued to decline. Both statements could be true at once. The Central Union government announced only the first. The word “loss” was prohibited in official documents on the grounds that it caused fear. The Stellar Federations likewise established by law that energy loss violated the laws of physics under all circumstances and required the use of alternative terminology. It explained that every loss had a destination not yet discovered and that every deficit carried the possibility of future recovery.
The energy accounting ledgers improved rapidly. As more energy disappeared, energy receivables increased. Actual power generation declined, but the energy civilization expected to receive in the future continued to grow. Banks used those assets as collateral for loans to build new passages and settlements. The scarcer energy became, the more credit was available. Someone asked whether there had ever been a case in which energy receivable had actually been recovered. Citing the Accounting Commission, the government replied that the date for recovery had not yet arrived. As long as the universe had a remaining lifespan, the possibility of recovery remained. Under accounting law, a loss could not be confirmed until the end of the universe. While they waited, interest accrued in the ledgers. The amount of energy had not increased. In the ledgers of the later era, the largest asset was neither an existing star nor a planet. It was energy receivable, recorded as something that would return someday. Civilization was wealthier in the future than in the present. In the present, it consumed against that future as collateral.
The fact that energy was conserved across the entire universe did not mean that a civilization would not starve. A glass of water poured into the sea did not disappear from Earth, but to the person who had intended to drink it, it might as well have disappeared. Loss was not a state of energy. It was a relationship between energy and the beings that needed it. Once the word “loss” disappeared, the poverty of civilization could be concealed without anyone having to lie. The belief that energy had not been destroyed endured to the very end, but the civilization that could use that energy did not.