Do less bright stars have redder spectrum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tarekatpf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spectrum Stars
AI Thread Summary
Less bright stars do not necessarily have a redder spectrum, as star brightness and color depend on multiple factors. Stars emit radiation similar to black bodies, with temperature being a key determinant of their spectrum; hotter stars radiate more energy and shift towards higher frequencies. Colder stars typically appear redder but their brightness can also be influenced by their size, as seen in red giants, which are large but cooler. Main sequence stars have their temperatures and sizes primarily determined by mass, with age and metallicity playing a minor role. Therefore, while there is a correlation between brightness and spectrum, it is not a straightforward relationship.
tarekatpf
Messages
140
Reaction score
1
Do less bright stars have redder spectrum?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Not necessarily. Stars radiate pretty much like black bodies, so the spectrum depends on temperature like so:
bbrc6b.gif

The hotter the star, the more it radiates, and the more is the spectrum shifted towards higher frequencies. Colder stars would then normally radiate less and be redder.
But that doesn't take into account the radiative area of the star(so, size). Red giants, for example, are relatively cold, and radiate small amounts of energy per unit surface area, but since the area is so large, they can be extremely bright.

However, stars on the main sequence(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) have their temperatures and sizes dependent on mass only(and age and metallicity, but to a lesser degree). So as long as you restrict yourself to these only, your statement is true.
 
  • Like
Likes 2 people
Bandersnatch said:
Not necessarily. Stars radiate pretty much like black bodies, so the spectrum depends on temperature like so:
bbrc6b.gif

The hotter the star, the more it radiates, and the more is the spectrum shifted towards higher frequencies. Colder stars would then normally radiate less and be redder.
But that doesn't take into account the radiative area of the star(so, size). Red giants, for example, are relatively cold, and radiate small amounts of energy per unit surface area, but since the area is so large, they can be extremely bright.

However, stars on the main sequence(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) have their temperatures and sizes dependent on mass only(and age and metallicity, but to a lesser degree). So as long as you restrict yourself to these only, your statement is true.

Thank you very much for such an excellent answer with a diagram and the link to the wikipedia article on Main sequence stars. That was very helpful.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top