Is Stefan's Law Truly Valid at All Temperatures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter the4thamigo_uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Uv
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of Stefan-Boltzmann law at high temperatures, questioning whether it truly holds for real bodies. The lecturer suggests that the law may break down at elevated temperatures, leading to a scenario where a body could stop radiating and continue to heat up indefinitely, which raises concerns about thermodynamic equilibrium. The conversation highlights the complexity of real-world absorption and emission spectra, noting that interatomic bonds and electron transitions complicate the theoretical models. Despite these complexities, the discussion concludes that it is remarkable that all bodies can still radiate enough energy to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium. The validity of the T^4 law across all temperatures remains a central point of inquiry.
the4thamigo_uk
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
I was watching two small lectures on youtube about black body radiation, they are interesting but I am questioning some of the information they provide :

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=254B23CEE44ABE58&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=6tikmVfrQrk

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=254B23CEE44ABE58&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=xF4D6fS-KA8

My question is related to the graph of the Stefan-Boltzman law that the lecturer draws on the blackboard. Specifically he introduces the law as usual saying that the total power radiated by a body at temperature T, scales as the fourth power of T. This is fine. He then says that experimentally this law breaks down for real bodies and drops off to zero at high temperatures. Is this true?

If it was true then if I heat a real body beyond a certain temperature then it will stop radiating, hence it cannot maintain thermodynamic equilibrium and will just heat up, increase its temperature and radiate even less, heat up even more etc.?

My understanding is that this is not explained by the ultraviolet catastrophe (which seems to be an entirely different thing). In particular from wikipedia, it is possible to derive the T^4 law from Plancks law as well classical thermodynamics, so solving the UV catastrophe does not change Stefans Law. So the T^4 law must be true at all temperatures in the real world right?




A further thought occurs to me which is touched on in the lecturer with the 'rock star' example. In the real world, interatomic molecular bonds radiate in the infra red, electron orbital changes radiate in the UV. There is therefore a discontinuous distribution of absorption. Furthermore at certain temperatures interatomic bonds might break and essentially free the atoms from each other, or electrons might escape their orbitals. In other words the absorbtion/emission spectrums are very complicated!

So, the theoretical model obviously doesn't take any of this into account, Plancks little oscillators appear to have an infinite number of energy levels. So I guess they are really analogous to interatomic bonds which never break and there are no other forms of electromagnetic emission and the particles never escape the potential well. This ok?

So, given that the real world is complicated and that no real object really emits Plancks spectrum, isn't it remarkable? that all bodies can radiate enough energy to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone have a comment on this?
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
600
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
916
Replies
2
Views
2K