Sign convention of bolometric correction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the sign convention of bolometric correction (BC) in the context of stellar radiation. Participants explore the implications of different definitions and conventions used in astronomy regarding bolometric and visual magnitudes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes confusion regarding the sign of bolometric correction, questioning whether it is consistent across different stars.
  • Another participant provides a reference that explains two different zero-points for bolometric correction, suggesting that one definition leads to positive values while another can result in negative values.
  • A participant raises a question about why bolometric correction is often perceived as positive, suggesting that it might be negative if bolometric magnitude is smaller than visual magnitude.
  • There is mention of varying sign conventions in different sources, with one source defining BC as the difference between bolometric and visual magnitudes in one order, while another source uses the reverse order, indicating a lack of standardization in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty and highlight that there are multiple competing views regarding the sign convention of bolometric correction, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects limitations in the definitions and conventions used, as well as the potential for confusion stemming from different sources and interpretations in the field of astronomy.

phenolic
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Okay I realize that stars emit at least some radiation outside the visual range but I have seen stars with positive BC when I thought that most values are negative due to the radiant flux over all wavelengths being greater than its flux over a certain wavelength. Is the sign of the BC the same for any star? I think I am getting lost somewhere...any input? Thanks
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Not an expert on the subject, but I found this: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O80-bolometriccorrection.html

The difference between the visual and bolometric magnitudes of an object. Two zero-points are in use, which differ by 0.07 mag. One defines the Sun to have zero bolometric correction. The other has its zero-point set so that bolometric corrections for all stars are positive; this is because other stars emit more energy than the Sun at non-visual wavelengths, either in the ultraviolet for hotter stars or the infrared for cooler stars. Confusingly, some authorities define bolometric correction as bolometric magnitude minus visual magnitude, which makes all values negative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay..the othermore straightforward question why is the bolometric correction always positive? Wouldn't the bolometric correction be negative since the bolometric magnitude is smaller than the visual magnitude
 
Well it just all depends on what sign convention people are using. And... it seems like different people use different things. For example, wikipedia uses BC = Mb - Mv, whereas scienceworld.wolfram.com uses BC = Mv - Mb. I don't know what the standard is generally in astronomy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
9K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K