How does the radius of a star affect the temperature of a planet orbiting it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FunkyDwarf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Temperature
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on how the radius of a star influences the temperature of an orbiting planet, assuming the planet acts as a perfect black body. The key equations referenced include the inverse square law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which relate intensity and temperature. It is noted that while the intensity of radiation decreases with distance, the star's radius may not significantly impact the planet's temperature if the orbital radius is much larger than the star's radius. However, a larger star at the same distance and temperature would emit more power, potentially leading to a higher temperature for the planet. Overall, the relationship between star radius and planetary temperature is complex and requires careful consideration of distance and intensity.
FunkyDwarf
Messages
481
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

Quick question:

Homework Statement


Assume the planet (from a previous question) is a perfect black body and that the only source of energy is the [neutron] star. Derive an expression for the temperature of the planet as a function of the orbit distance, star temperature and star radius.


Homework Equations


Inverse square law (I1/I2)=(d2/d1)^2
I = sT^4 (s = stefan boltzman)


The Attempt at a Solution


Ok now i know how to work out watts per m^2 at a distance, that's cool, but in terms of temperature do we really need the star radius? I did the following. I worked out the intensity at the planet distance and converted that to a temperature, but that only depended on the intial distance and the orbit distance, not star radius, unless they suppose that the former is the star radius which doesn't make sense unless we treat the source of energy as the centre of the star.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
-G
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A constant surface temperature would give a constant Intensity of emission at the surface, regardless of the radius of the star. The difference is that the intensity diminishes from this initial intensity as the radius goes from the radius of the star to the radius of orbit of the planet. If the orbital radius is much much bigger than the radius of the star, this becomes an insignificant difference, but it still can put into the formula.
 
Sorry I am not sure i understand how the radius of the star comes into it. the only thing is intuitively if you have a larger star, at the same distance, with the same temp you're outputting more power so you'd think the planet would be hotter
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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...
Back
Top