Finding flux from apparent and absolute magnitude

sikrut
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
How much flux reaches Earth from an unobscured star?

##m_{sun} = -26.83## and ##M_{sun} = +4.74##
##m = +6## and ##M = +4.74##

Calculated distance of target star:

##d = 17.86 pc##

Now, here I'm trying to find the flux of a star that has the same absolute magnitude as our sun, but has an apparent magnitude of 6.

Does it make sense to assume that because their absolute mags are the same, that the ratio of their luminosities should be 1? Further more, under that assumption, I understand how to calculate the ratio of their fluxes (sun to star), but I am a bit lost when trying to calculate their fluxes independently...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, if the stars have the same absolute magnitude, they have the same luminosity.
 
You can't calculate the flux from apparent magnitude independently. You need some reference point. The apparent magnitudes of two sources are related by
$$m - m_\text{ref} = -2.5 \log \frac{F}{F_\text{ref}}$$ where F is the flux and the subscript ref refers to a known reference.
 
But what if the absolute magnitudes and distances of those stars are known?
 
Is there not some way to manipulate the flux ratio so that you can calculate the fluxes of each star?
 
No. If all you have is, for example, ##F/F_\text{ref} = 2##, there's no way to differentiate between the case where (neglecting units) ##F=1## and ##F_\text{ref} = 1/2## and where ##F=2## and ##F_\text{ref}=1##. You have only one equation but two unknowns.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top