How does a Theory differ from a Law in Science? (eg. Theory of Evolution and Law of Thermodynamics I & II)?
828385
A scientific theory is very, very different from a layman's theory.\n\nA scoentific theory has gone from a hypothesis (which is closer to the layman's term theory) to having been tested repeatedly and having been proven correct. However, the difference between a theory and a law is falsification, which is a crazy word to define.\n\nBasically, a theory cannot be made into a law until it has been proven that the *opposite* of that theory is false.\n\nFirst law of thermodynamics, for example. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has been proven. It has also been proven that the opposite is NOT true--the total energy of the universe not remaining constant is false.\n\nTheory of evolution. People and so on evolved from lower organisms. This is provable. However, "people did not evolve from lower organisms" has not yet been proven false.\n\nBoggles the mind, doesn't it?
275638
- All of the above\n\nThe 1st Law of Thermodynamics tells us that energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus the energy of the universe is a constant. However, energy can certainly be transferred from one part of the universe to another. To work out thermodynamic problems we will need to isolate a certain portion of the universe (the system) from the remainder of the universe (the surroundings).
1111326
the 1LOT (1st law of thermodynamics) says that neither matter nor energy are being created (new) or destroyed...that they can only change forms (ie, matter can be converted to energy and visa versa)\n\nie, there is no "overall" gain or loss of matter and energy combined\n\nwhile that law has yet to be falsified, it is far easier to convert matter to energy than it is to convert energy to matter
971494
The two principal laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, that is, entities with which there can be no exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe in its totality might be considered a closed system of this type; this would allow the two laws to be applied to it.\n\nThe first law of thermodynamics says that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains constant. This is the principle of the conservation of energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of this energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy.\n\nThe first principle establishes the equivalence of the different forms of energy (radiant, chemical, physical, electrical, and thermal), the possibility of transformation from one form to another, and the laws that govern these transformations. This first principle considers heat and energy as two magnitudes of the same physical nature\n\n\nThere seems to be a contradiction between the first and second principles. One says that heat and energy are two dimensions of the same nature; the other says they are not, since potential energy is degraded irreversibly to an inferior, less noble, lower-quality form--heat. Statistical theory provides the answer. Heat is energy; it is kinetic energy that results from the movement of molecules in a gas or the vibration of atoms in a solid. In the form of heat this energy is reduced to a state of maximum disorder in which each individual movement is neutralized by statistical laws.\n\nPotential energy, then, is organized energy; heat is disorganized energy. And maximum disorder is entropy. The mass movement of molecules (in a gas, for example) will produce work (drive a piston). But where motion is ineffective on the spot and headed in all directions at the same time, energy will be present but ineffective. One might say that the sum of all the quantities of heat lost in the course of all the activities that have taken place in the universe measures the accumulation of entropy. \n\nOne can generalise further. Thanks to the mathematical relation between disorder and probability, it is possible to speak of evolution toward an increase in entropy by using one or the other of two statements: "left to itself, an isolated system tends toward a state of maximum disorder" or "left to itself, an isolated system tends toward a state of higher probability." (this is illustrated most simply by the example of the box with two compartments). \n\nThe concepts of entropy and irreversibility, derived from the second principle, have had a tremendous impact on our view of the universe. In breaking the vicious circle of repetitiveness in which the ancients were trapped, and in being confronted with biological evolution generating order and organization, the concept of entropy indirectly opens the way to a philosophy of progress and development (see: the direction of evolution). At the same time it introduces the complementarity between the "two great drifts of the universe" described in the works of Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin.\n\n\nMore details at the link below :--
1138095
scientific laws are fact they are not fictions....they are layed after doing lot of research and development work....so they can not be disporved but they can be improved further by doing more study..\n\nhope this helps!!!
501375
Theory is a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena. While hypothesis a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation.\n\nTherefore, theory is something that is a fact and that has been proven to be correct, while hypthesis is still on the process of observation and experimentation.
770975
Well, since both reincarnation and creation are religious beliefs, while evolution is a scientific theory, it's comparing apples to oranges. They are in whole different realms.\n\nI'd like to point out that the poster above me (Paganfire) is mistaken. Her explanation of evolution is actually that of thermodynamics. Biological evolution is descent with modification. Many people lump all the theories of science together as one 'belief', but they are not beliefs, as they are built on evidence.
41518
Yes. All theories exist. When a theory is proven, it becomes a law or a fact.
105503
A hypothesis is an educated guess about a scientific problem.  A theory is what you get when your hypothesis has evidence to back it up.
1003064
Kelvin, in 1851, gave the statement for second law of thermodynamics as "It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat reservoir."\n\n\nIn a general sense, the Second Law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out. Pressure differences, density differences, and particularly temperature differences, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity. This means that an isolated system will eventually come to have a uniform temperature. A thermodynamic engine is an engine that provides useful work from the difference in temperature of two bodies. Since any thermodynamic engine requires such a temperature difference, it follows that no useful work can be derived from an isolated system in equilibrium, there must always be energy fed from the outside. The Second Law is often invoked as the reason why perpetual motion machines cannot exist.
1024031
Umm, no, I think that evolution is a theory, whereas molecular biology is a branch of science.  And molecular biology was most certainly NOT derived by Darwin.  He hadn't the tools, you see.  So, no to everything you said.  And I didn't understand what you meant by mixing up.  Do you mean using?  In which case, no, microbiology isn't being used to prove a theory, that's not how science works.  It's being used to observe the world and make predictions.  That's why it's science.\nAnd, instead of physics, why don't you ask in biology?  I think you might get better answers about evolution there.  Just a tip.  If you want to ask in physics, go ahead.  I'm just sayin'
173191
Im learning about this in my science class. The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one place to another, and can be changed into a different form.
1104172
You don't understand the definition of a theory and a fact do you? I presume, judging from your words, you believe that a theory is essentially a conjecture, a guess, that sort of thing? Well, you thought wrong.\n\nScientific definitions and mathematical definitions are far different and more precise than everyday language. For us, a salt is that white stuff that preserves foods and gives the food, obviously enough, that "salty" taste. In chemistry, a salt is any ionic compound formed by anions and cations so that the net charge of the compound is neutral. \n\nIn that same manner, a theory is not just a "guess." Theories and facts are not rungs on a ladder of credibility - they complement each other. Theories are really models for explaining a series of natural phenomena, backed by strong evidence. Theories explain facts. Again, they are not "guesses."\n\nAnd, in that manner, evolution is both a theory AND a fact. There is the theory of evolution, which explains it, and there is the fact of evolution. This is similar to the theory of gravity; how the theory explains the fact that gravity exist, and the reason why apples fall down and hit us on the head. \n\nThere is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it is a strongly-backed theory. Also, all theories are incomplete and subject to revision. That applies to all theories - not just evolution. The atomic theory expanded over the last century as the Bohr model evolved into the current electron-cloud model. \n\nAlso, another misconception to clear up - there is nothing proven in science; there is just evidence to support it.\n\nAlso, people who criticize evolution often forget that it doesn't deal with the origin of life, it is NOT random, that the concept of uniformitarianism in science make evolution valid, etc.\n\nI suggest you read a little.
733252
Physics to biology. \n\n\nBiology has realtivly little to offer to physics, however because of the way in which physics can explain things on a very small scale ( the interactions of particles and such), it would have more to offer to biology.
391361
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. \n\nTheory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
477695
The unifying theory within biology is considered by most to be the theory of evolution, in reality there are several theories that can be considered unifying: the cell theory, the theory of evolution, gene theory, and the theory of homeostasis.\n\nIf this is for homework, I would guess that your teacher or whoever created the worksheet you're doing for homework is looking for the theory of evolution.
1136881
As usual, there are a number of people who do not seem to know what a theory is, claiming that something is 'just' a theory, as though there is some higher category to ascend to when something is crowned a 'law' or something.\n\nScientific laws are descriptions of things that are observed, factual and proven.  They DO NOT provide an explanation as to WHY that observed factual process occurs.\n\nThe 'law' of gravity is that things fall.  That's it.  It doesn't provide any explanation of why things fall, or how they do it, just that they do.\n\nThere is indeed a 'law' of evolution, and that is that organisms are different than their parents.  It doesn't provide any explanation of why that might be, it is simply an observation.\n\nThe 'theory' of evolution is any attempt to explain this observation, just as the 'theory' of gravity attempts to explain why things fall.  Evidence is then gathered to either support or disprove this theory.  \n\nNow another big misconception comes in when people discuss 'The Theory of Evolution'.  What they are usually refering to by the 'Theory of Evolution' is the theory of speciation through natural selection that was first proposed by Charles Darwin as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.  This theory is indeed a theory, but it is not 'only a theory'.  There's no higher level to a theory.  It is either a valid theory, or it is disproved through contrary evidence.\n\nThe theory of speciation through natural selection is one of the most important theories in biology, and ALL evidence collected to date, from the fossil record, to genetic testing, to the biogeographic distribution of living species, to potassium/argon dating of rocks in the Canadian shield, to bacteria in hospitals developing resistance to antibiotics, to the pattern of magnetic reversals recorded in the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, to the wide diversity of different kinds of beetles, to the physiological similarities between leopards and jaguars ALL support the theory, and there hasn't been a single piece of evidence presented which has disproven the theory.\n\nSo evolution is both a fact (the fact that offspring differ genetically from their parents), and is also a theory (usually refering to the theory of speciation through natural selection, but there are actually dozens of additional, complementary theories of evolution as well).