[Astrophysics] Star luminosity-radius-temperature problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrev
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Astrophysics Star
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a homework problem related to the luminosity-radius-temperature relationship of a Cepheid variable star. The initial confusion arises from the use of logarithmic equations versus direct calculations of luminosity ratios. The participant initially questions why logarithmic methods are necessary, as they seem to yield different results from direct calculations. Ultimately, they resolve the issue by recognizing the inverse nature of the magnitude scale, which clarifies their calculations. The problem is successfully solved using both approaches.
Andrev
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi!

Homework Statement



The light variation of a Cepheid is 2 mag,if its effective temperature at maximum luminosity is
6000K, while at minimum is 5000K, please estimate the ratio of its maximum and minimum
radius.

Homework Equations



$$\Delta m=-2,5lg\frac{L_{min}}{L_{max}}$$
$$lg\frac{L_{min}}{L_{max}}=2lg\frac{R_{min}}{R_{max}}+4lg\frac{L_{min}}{L_{max}}$$

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, actually I should solve the problem with those two formulas above. My question is: why I can not just calculate the $$\frac{L_{min}}{L_{max}}$$ and solve the $$\frac{L_{min}}{L_{max}}=\frac{4\pi R_{min}^2 \cdot T_{min}^4\cdot \sigma}{4\pi R_{max}^2 \cdot T_{max}^4\cdot \sigma}$$ equation? Why I have to calculate with the lgs? As I studied the problem it looked for me that these two methods are equal but I got different results.

Thanks in advance,


Andrev
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry for spamming the forum with this I solved it on my own:

Of course I can calculate with the form without lgs too. I missed the calculation at the beginning: I forgot that the magnitude scale is inverse, so $$-0.4\cdot (m_1-m_2)=-0.4 \cdot \Delta m <0$$ It is ok now. Andrev
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top