[quote=@Webmaster] Could you clarify the property you are referring to? I again believe that you're referring to dark energy, because there is nothing that would make anti-energy anti-energy. There are no properties to reverse. You may be referring to exotic matter/negative energy, which has negative mass and negative energy (as the name implies), which is a totally different thing. We don't really know much at all about this. "Anti-energy is theoretically possible, therefor exists in MR in half of all cases" I'm going to have to disagree with this one. I would argue that anything being "possible" is simply a probability of it being capable of existing based on our own understanding of nature. Because of this, all things are either something that is capable of existing or not capable of existing, regardless of whether or not we have the knowledge to prove that this is true or ever will. But as an extension of that, it is either capable of existing or not capable of existing in all applicable universes. The scope of all applicable universes includes all universes with similar properties, which would imply virtually all of them due to the very precise nature of physical constants. Those physical constants have very small room for changes in most circumstances, and a universe that alters those to any significant extent would require radical changes in all other values. But there is no guarantee that another configuration of physical constants would fit together in the precise way ours does, leading to the possibility that no universes have greatly differing physical properties. I agree that higher spacial dimensions would appear differently, but they would still adhere to the same basic laws, just at different levels of complexity, like they theoretically do in our world (if they exist). I don't think the formula for matter-antimatter conversion (if one exists at all) is as simple as substituting a -1 for the quantum number multiplier. Maybe, but there are a lot of factors when dealing with quantum mechanics and she would have to deal with all of those factors from a vector perspective rather than an energy one, which is more difficult. Also, that would be applying a scalar rather than adding a vector, which I understand is rather similar on a trivial case basis, but still. There's already someone who can do that. She'd have to prevent it from reacting violently with that around her, and if it also is pushed on a higher dimensional plane, it'll be much harder to track. If it does react violently, she has to keep the reaction at bay, lowering her concentration focused on everything else. She'd also have to keep track of everything converted on the fly, which would be incredibly difficult since she would have to calculate the momentum, spin, etc. of every atom in the immediate space to see what is reversed. Seth can do it rather easily based on their properties, but there's no vector that distinguishes matter and antimatter without a closer look. [/quote] Enthalpy itself? Possibly, but I'm also including the concept of anti-energy that couldn't exist in our universe. That entire statement is based on a view that is from within a universe. You assume that because our universe works a certain way, all must work similarly, which is entirely the opposite of MR canon. Removing the infinity problem, there are perhaps 2% of all universes that share properties similar enough to ours to have all the physics we have be applicable in the same way. Due to the infinity problem, this is raised to 50%. It is simply because our characters happen to be from these universes and therefor avoid those that are too different that the universes shown in MR are so similar. Anti-energy could be as simple as an energy equivalent of antimatter or as complex as something entirely different, depending on the universe. Whether or not it exists in ours is irrelevant. Mm. Both points you raise work on paper, but remember that she affects actualized vectors, which don't work the way vectors do on a conceptual level. The 1x to -1x example is just to show that reversing a vector is trivial for her. The whole thing about her being third most powerful is that she can do all these things as naturally as blinking. She doesn't have to go into a vector and add more to change it, she can change it as is. Changing a vector from 1x to 1y or 1000x or -1x are all equally simple for her, and doing any single one for a vector or set of vectors takes almost no effort. This level of effort and thought required is what sets her so apart from the other vector controlling Codex that came before her. It's not always a conscious thing for her to alter something the way she wants, the actual details are usually subconscious. Also remember that there really isn't such a thing as actualized scalars; the act of being actualized makes almost all of them into vectors. Codex don't sit down and write out formulas and alter numbers in them, they alter what they control essentially by telling it to change. That's why they're so special and important, and why their powers can't be replicated. Accelerator's vector control is nothing like Ma'ats, even though they technically have the same power. Fair enough, though if they have opposite "spins," that is a vector that would allow for easy distinction. But simply pulling an Accel and pushing away all vectors would create an Aegis against it as well.