Does a Black Body's Emission Rate Challenge the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QwertyXP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2nd law Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the emission rates of black bodies and their implications for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Participants explore the relationship between surface area and emission rates while questioning the potential for temperature changes in a closed system of two black bodies.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss whether the rate of emission from a black body depends solely on its surface area, particularly in a scenario involving two black bodies at the same temperature but differing surface areas. They question if this leads to a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when considering energy loss and temperature changes.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various scenarios regarding energy emission and absorption between the two black bodies. Some guidance has been offered regarding the implications of energy loss and the conditions under which the 2nd Law might be considered violated, though no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants are examining hypothetical scenarios that challenge the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, including the conditions under which energy emitted by one body could affect the other without reflecting back. The nature of the system and assumptions about energy interactions are central to the discussion.

QwertyXP
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
1. Keeping the temperature constant, does the rate of emission from a black body depend solely on its surface area?

2. If it does, let's consider the following: we have two black bodies in our system, A and B lying close to each other. Both are at same temperature but the surface area of A is twice that of B. Now, the rate of emission from A should also be twice that of B. This implies that over a certain time, A loses more energy than it gains. So its temperature should drop. But doesn't that violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?

(it's not really a HW question, just a thought that popped up in my mind)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
QwertyXP said:
let's consider the following: we have two black bodies in our system, A and B lying close to each other. Both are at same temperature but the surface area of A is twice that of B. Now, the rate of emission from A should also be twice that of B. This implies that over a certain time, A loses more energy than it gains. So its temperature should drop. But doesn't that violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?

If the system in question consist just of those two bodies, and if the energy they emit is lost in space - there is no problem. They don't have to cool at the same speed.

If the system in question consist just of those two bodies, and if the energy they emit is reflected back - larger body absorbs the energy in speed proportional to its surface, that is, twice faster, so its temperature doesn't change. There is no problem.
 
Thanks for replying.

For the two possibilities that you mentioned, indeed there wouldn't be any problem.

But what if we somehow ensure that all of A's radiation falls on B (without any of it reflecting back to A), and vice versa? Then the temp of B would increase and that of A would decrease.
 
If we "somehow ensure" you are right. But 2nd law tells that it is impossible. It may sound like a circular reasoning, but it is not - it just just tells you that you have to actually design and implement system that "somehow ensures" before you can state 2nd law is violated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K