No, evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
No life disobeys the Second Law. Zygotes become embryos, embryos become foetuses, foetuses become babies, then children, then adults. All zygote-to-adult growth fails to disobey the Second Law. There is a constant influx of energy into the growing individuals through nutrition. All life carries out nutrition. There is always energy available for growth and reproduction and if there is enough energy for that, then there is enough energy for change/evolution. In this sense, Law-disobeying complexity is not added, from prokaryote to eukaryote or even from bacterium to human. It is simply growth from neonate-form to adult and there is certainly enough energy for that.
Usually it is not said that "life" violates the second law, but it is the theory of evolution that does so. See the related question below for an explanation of why that statement is controversial.
Humans really aren't capable of obstructing the second law. If we could act in the manner of "Maxwell's Demon" we might be able to - but so far no one has managed to meet the criteria :-)
"Unavailable for doing work" is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
No biological entity violates any of the laws of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The second law does NOT make evolution impossible. It just requires that as evolution takes place that there be an increase in entropy of the universe as a whole.
If you are suggesting a "perpetual motion" scenerio, it would violate the first or second laws of thermodynamics. Many inventors dream of perpetual motion machines, but they are an impossible dream according to the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics says that an engine or process of any type must always have an efficiency of less than 100%. A perpetual motion machine that uses a generator to power the motor that runs the generator requires both the generator and motor to operate with 100% efficiency. This type of perpetual motion machine does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, but violates the second law of thermodynamics. It is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Not even the cleverest engineer or inventor can build a perpetual motion machine because it would violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics, which are fundamental laws of physics.
Quite simply, that would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The pressure difference is caused by the weight of the water above it, and it is an equilibrium situation.
According to the second law of Thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy will continuously decrease.According to the second law of Thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy will continuously decrease.According to the second law of Thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy will continuously decrease.According to the second law of Thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy will continuously decrease.
True
Yes. It has to be so, since it would otherwise be possible to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
It is the idea of a machine continuously producing energy, without energy input - or producing more energy than what is put into the machine. This would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and in general, it is not believed to be possible. No process is known which violates the conservation of energy. (A "perpetual motion machine of the second kind" would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; this is generally believed to be impossible, too.)
The second law of thermodynamics.
"Unavailable for doing work" is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics
No biological entity violates any of the laws of thermodynamics.
second law