Black body radiation -- Spherical shell surrounding a star

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the formula for black body radiation in the context of a spherical shell surrounding a star. Participants highlight that the energy emitted by a body remains constant regardless of the shell's size, contradicting the implication that larger shells would reflect infinite energy. The importance of knowing the star's radius and the distinction between equilibrium temperatures of the shell and the star are emphasized. Additionally, the concept of Gaussian surfaces is introduced, clarifying that they do not radiate energy. Overall, the problem is deemed incorrectly framed, leading to misunderstandings about the physics involved.
Eitan Levy
Messages
259
Reaction score
11
Homework Statement
A spherical shell with a radius of R surrounds a star with temperature T.

Find the amount of energy that the shell from the star in an hour.
Relevant Equations
[tex] P=\sigma*A*T^4 [/tex]
I don't understand how this can be solved.

The official solution was:

F=\sigma*T^4

E=F*4\pi R^2*60*60

This doesn't make sense to me, as it seems to imply that the energy that the black body radiates depends on the radius of the shell. For a very large shell the body will reflect "infinity" energy.

Can someone please explain this?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a body emits a total of 100 Joules per second and you enclose it completely with a shell, 100 Joules per second will pass through the entire shell no matter how large the shell is.
 
  • Like
Likes Eitan Levy
kuruman said:
If a body emits a total of 100 Joules per second and you enclose it completely with a shell, 100 Joules per second will pass through the entire shell no matter how large the shell is.

That's what I figured! Is the solution wrong?
 
You should previously know the star's radius.
 
  • Like
Likes hmmm27
Gordianus said:
You should previously know the star's radius.
The radius R of the surrounding shell is given. That ought to be enough.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes hmmm27
But at equilibrium the temperature of the shell is not the temperature of the star. That is the point and the OP is correct.
 
hutchphd said:
But at equilibrium the temperature of the shell is not the temperature of the star. That is the point and the OP is correct.
True, but there is no mention of equilibrium in the statement of the problem. My interpretation is that the shell is something like a Gaussian surface and not a material object.
 
Gaussian surfaces do not radiate. The ##\sigma T^4## is for the surface that radiates and is emitted power per area. You are making the same mistake as the Prof I fear.
 
  • Like
Likes kuruman
Perhaps the homework has a wording problem. I think the sphere of radius R is a sort of Gaussian surface that encloses the star (that radiates to the 2.7 K background). Thus, we should know the star's radius (call it a)
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #10
You need to know the the temperature of some physical object of known radius. The problem as stated is not correctly solved.
No hand waving required. As pointed out astutely by the OP this leads to infinite power Dyson spheres.
 
  • #11
hutchphd said:
Gaussian surfaces do not radiate. The ##\sigma T^4## is for the surface that radiates and is emitted power per area. You are making the same mistake as the Prof I fear.
You fear correctly. Goes to show that I shouldn't be trying to do problems in my head.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
Back
Top