Physics inherently incorporates energy, which is defined there as a limited resource. A limited resource's static distributions and dynamic transactions must obey some form of economic theory. Any mathematical (symbolic) representation which is applied to physics must contain constraints which in some sense address its economic laws like conservation of energy and the relativity of energy, which at times may seem to even contradict themselves[2]. pure mathematics physical models \ / \ / \ / \/ economic constraints (applied mathematics) It might as well be said that "game theory" rather than "economics" is a "different" classification for any theory which connects a purely subjective symbolic representation to physical models, but this distinguishment would require a definition itself. If that definition reduces to the identity operator then the two classifications "economics" and "game theory" may be taken as equivalent and identical, meaning not only that they translatable, but also that they are signifying[1] the same physical thing or self-simulating, or auto-correlating, or autopoeitic, or real-time... This constraint of "accountability" seems essential in an economy; in pure mathematics; it is not essential ? The question may be asked: "Is pure mathematics economical ?" Any aspect of pure mathematics which does not admit infinities can be can be called economical ? In physics, and particularly quantum physics, dynamic effects tend to admit the "infinity" concept. For instance, in economics, "money" always has at least two fundamental valuations: 1) The liquidable value in "the present": This is the value of the money if "measured" in the present. It is very similar to the idea of a "particle" or "state" as a measured value in quantum physics since the "tangible" value measured must conform to the "economic" law of conservation of energy, and yet the measured value of the particle is derived from an "intangible" market value (wavefunction) at some specific (static) time of its collapse. 2) The future or speculative value: This is the market value projected into the future which does not require any "strong" adherence to the economic law of the conservation of energy and so admits to infinities. In quantum physics, "virtual particles" may utilize energy in the economic sense of "credit"; or money which is loaned in speculation of its return with interest. We might ask: "Where in physics is energy loaned out (in violation of the conservation law) with the expectation of returnHomewith interest?" or "What is the analog of 'interest' in physics ?" Inorganic Economies In inorganic physics, a laser amplifies the pumping energy, which may "appear" to violate the conservation laws. How can a laser put out more power than it is given ? The definition of "power" is relative. It's static value is determined by how spatial-temporally focused the energy it represents is. Its dynamic value is more problematic to measure. The dynamic value, like the dynamic market value in an economy is not statically measureable; or rather, a static measurement upon a dynamic system only yields a parametric projection upon that system: one that is space-time constrained. An example here is determining the dynamic power requirements of some electronic circuit based upon the power requirements of the parts. This is done all the time macroscopically in classical electronics, but in a quantum physical sense, it apparently cannot be done. Why ? The electronic circuit is inherently space-time constrained, but the quantum "circuit" is not. The quantum circuit utilizes the idea of infinite virtual space (or identically "virtual memory", in quantum computation) in terms of the infinite Hilbert space which is often employed to define it's operating environment of abstract wavefunctions. These wavefunctions _can be_ like the market of a florishing economy in that they do not collapse systemically, even though subsystemically a measurement may be made upon them resulting in a spatial-temporal (localized) constraint (collapse); this is a quantum measurement without collapsing the systemic wavefunctions: an "interaction-free" or "quantum non-demolition" measurement. It may often be said metaphorically, that in quantum physics, any measurement destroys its entire market economy (of superposed wavefunctions) or: "In quantum economics, no one can sell anything without a resulting economic depression." Of course we know, this isn't always true. It is true that if we release the energy of a laser we can release it all at once totally destroying its energy economy, but we can also release a laser's energy continuously. The power output of a pulsed laser is considerably larger than a continuously discharged laser with the same pumping energy because the energy is pooled or damned before being released like a tidal wave. Similarly the pressure of a phonograph needle is considerable compared to the same weight weight distributed over a wider area. Energy is conserved in these cases, it is the power which changes. The funny thing though is that power can be negative. Power is usually measured in positive watts and most watt-meters reflect this. It is rare that the power company installs a watt-meter which records the negative power generated in a solar home. As a consumer society, we are tuned-in to the idea that power is always a positive value to be consumed. The corresponding idea of negative energy is even less intuitive and especially so because it leads to the idea that positive energy and negative energy might be superposed to yield no energy at all. Such an idea seems to violate the conservation of energy law and even logic in paradoxes like the immovable object meeting the irresistable force. It often seems the ideas of energy, power etc are not well-founded. An example is two equal and opposite forces acting on some point in space. These forces may seem to expend no energy and yet what distinguishes this from no forces at all acting on that point ? They both appear to be in equilibrium yet the 'stability' of the former is less than that of the later ? Without measuring pressure,... we say it's probability for abrupt change is much higher. It has stored the energy in its equilibrium and therefore has potential energy. Potential energy, unlike kinetic energy, is static and yet our notion of energy usually employs the idea of motion, even the units of energy contain time, so the idea of potential energy as static is somewhat at odds with the more dynamic or kinetic energy we usually talk about. The idea of superposed energy seems common place in terms of dividing potential and kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is relative and its definition is dynamic. Just as reflected color is dynamic and filtered color is static, kinetic energy is a dynamic superposition (like stocks) while potential energy is statically filterable and accountable (like pennies). Organic Economies liquidation, speculation, credit, interest, ... in life economies [1] Saussure, Course in General Linguistics [2] Somehat newer concepts like that of negative energy, the Cassimir effect, zero-point energy, non-linear effects... defy the current understanding of energy. This largely it seems is due to problems with the coherent understanding of the difference between ideas of "real" and "virtual" in various models as well as the ideas of positive and negative probabilities.