Mass-Luminosity-Time relation (Astronomy)

Unto
Messages
128
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The lifetime of the sun on the main sequenceof the hertzprung-russel diagram is estimated to be 10^10 years. Assuming that the luminosities of stars on the upper diagram main sequence vary as mass^4, estimate the solar mass of a star for which it's main squence lifetime is 10^6 years.



Homework Equations


L = k M^b
T = kM / L = k M^1-b
T = k M^-2

'=k' is a subsitute for the proportional symbol
b = beta


The Attempt at a Solution



I know the star is going to be heavier, but I'm not given any values for luminosity. And when I try to equate time to mass I get funny answers. A push in the right direction here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
K the sun's luminosity is 3.9E26 W, I figured I will use this to help me solve the answer.
 
The mass luminosity relation isn't a physical model; it's an empirical curvefit. The best fit isn't necessarily a pure power function.

It can be

L/L๏ = K (M/M๏)^a

But K isn't required to be 1.

It can also be more complicated, such as

L/L๏ = K₁ (M/M๏)^a₁ + K₂ (M/M๏)^a₂

For example, the mass luminosity relation for the mass interval from 2 suns to 20 suns is approximately

L/L๏ = 1.505964 (M/M๏)^3.5 − 0.0252982 (M/M๏)^4.5
 
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