Fundamental question about thermal radiation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of thermal radiation, specifically addressing the interactions between a body and the walls of a room at different temperatures. Participants explore the implications of radiation in a vacuum where conduction and convection are absent, questioning the net effects of radiation from both the body and the walls.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially believed that in a vacuum, the body would absorb heat from the walls due to the walls being at a higher temperature, but expressed uncertainty after reading another thread.
  • Another participant clarified that both the walls and the object radiate energy as long as they are above absolute zero, with the walls radiating more energy due to their higher temperature.
  • A participant referenced a discussion about Hawking radiation, suggesting that they were confused by claims regarding temperature differences and radiation, which led to their uncertainty about thermal radiation principles.
  • Some participants speculated that the context of background radiation might play a role in the understanding of radiation interactions, though this was not confirmed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not fully agree on the implications of thermal radiation in the described scenario. There is a clear disagreement on the interpretation of how radiation operates in the absence of conduction and convection, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the specifics of thermal radiation interactions, particularly in relation to background radiation and the conditions under which radiation occurs. There are unresolved assumptions about the nature of radiation in different contexts.

phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
19,385
Reaction score
15,617
I've always thought that the following was true but posts in another thread lead me to believe I might have a fundamental misunderstanding. The other thread was a different topic and I didn't want to hijack it, so here's my question.

What I THOUGHT was true but am not now sure about: an object is the only thing inside a room. It's magically off the floor so no conduction and I've sucked all the air out of the room, so no convection. The body is at 300 degrees Kelvin. All the surfaces of the room are at 350 degrees kelvin. My belief has been that the body radiates and the walls radiate and because the walls are hotter, they radiate MORE, so the net result is that the body absorbs some head from the walls and it gets hotter and the walls get cooler. By exactly what amounts is not relevant.

What I gathered from the other thread is that the only radiation is the NET radiation. That is, in this situation, the body does not radiate at all. The walls radiate until both the walls and the object are the same temperature.

I'd appreciate it if someone who knows what they're talking about, as I apparently don't, could clarify this for me.

Thanks
 
Science news on Phys.org
That is incorrect. Both the walls and the object will radiate at any time they are above 0k. The walls radiate more energy, so eventually both will reach equilibrium.
 
Well, hm ... that's exactly what I THOUGHT was the case. What lead me to think I might have it wrong was a thread on Hawking radiation out of a black hole where there were seemingly authoritative statements and (references supporting material) saying that Hawking radiation had never been observed because black holes are colder than the CMB so even if that's the only thing radiating into a black hole, it STILL couldn't have Hawking radiation because of the temperature difference.

I guess I must have misunderstood the other thread.

Thanks
 
I think they mean that the radiation is drowned out from the amount of background radiation. But I'm not sure.
 
Drakkith said:
I think they mean that the radiation is drowned out from the amount of background radiation. But I'm not sure.

I thought so too but posted a specific question that addressed that and it lead to this thread.

I'll have to go back and review that other thread. Still haven't done that.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How Did Ancient Persians Use Ice Pools to Produce Ice in the Desert?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Questions about Jean-Rayleigh's derivation of Ultraviolet Catastrophe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about thermal radiation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions About Stephan's Law of Thermal Radiation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Detection of hot spots with a thermal (non-radiometric) camera
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad Blackbody radiation and the cosmic microwave background
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Graduate Average temperature in a greenhouse
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Two Questions about thermal radiation....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Thermal Radiation Behavior of Non-Black Bodies: I'm Confused!
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate When/How does thermal radiation stop (if it stops) and conduction
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K