I Simple thought experiment with Stefan-Boltzmann law: energy

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter haushofer
  • Start date Start date
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
1,580
TL;DR Summary
Thought experiment where 2 spheres influence each other's temperatures.
Dear all,

in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows.

I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate the total power emitted, ##P = A \sigma T^4 = 4 \pi r^2 \sigma T^4## with ##\sigma = 5.670374419 \times 10^{-8} W m^{-2} K^{-4}##. Now we place a second sphere (2) with also radius ##r## (for simplicity) at a distance R from sphere 1, with a temperature of exactly ##T_2 = 600 K##. The question is: what happens with both temperatures, in light of the fact they both absorb a small portion of each others radiation?

Let's put some numbers in. I take ##r = 1 \ m## and ##R = 10 \ m## (we want ##r<<R## to simplify the calculations, so this is just on the edge, but it should work). Drawing the picture, one concludes that the emitted power of sphere 1 is spread over a spherical surface ##4 \pi R^2##, and the surface of sphere 2 which absorbs equals ##\pi r^2##. So the fraction ##c## of power absorbed is given by

$$ c \equiv \frac{\pi r^2}{4 \pi R^2} = \frac{r^2}{4 R^2} = 0.0025$$

The power emitted is given by ##P = A \sigma T^4##. Now some energy considerations: The power emitted after we place the two spheres at a distance ##R## apart in a vacuum becomes altered, which I indicate with an apostrophe. For the new equilibrium states of the emitted powers we then obtain

$$P_1'=P_1+c \cdot P_2' \ \ \ , \ \ \ P_2'=P_2+c \cdot P_1'$$

I.e. the power emitted in the new situation is just the power emitted because of the own inner heatings, plus the fraction of power absorbed from the other sphere, which in equilibrium will be emitted again. Solving this gives

$$P_1'=\frac{P_1 + c \cdot P_2}{1-c^2}$$

which can be plugged in to solve for ##P_2'##.

If I now plug in the numbers, I can calculate ##P_1'## and ##P_2'## and hence ##T_1'## and ##T_2 '##, to find ##T_1'=500.65 K## and ##T_2'=600.18 K##. So the initially warmer sphere is also 'heated' (i.e. it absorbs electromagnetic radiation, raising its temperature) by the colder sphere. The total power emitted changes by

$$P_1'+P_2' = \frac{P_1 +P_2}{1-c} = 1.0025... (P_1 + P_2)$$

My questions:

1) Does this calculation (and approximation) make sense? Are these two new temperatures the new equilibrium states of both spheres?
2) Somehow I'm a bit uneasy with energy conservation. Where did the extra 0.25% of energy come from? Doesn't this cause some "runaway effect"?

I have a feeling something goes wrong. Many thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand this equation ##P_1'=P_1+c \cdot P_2'##. Is ##c## positive or negative? It seems to me that the total power loss by sphere 1 in the vicinity of sphere 2 should be less than its power loss when it sits by itself for the reason you mentioned
haushofer said:
in light of the fact they both absorb a small portion of each others radiation
Absorption is the opposite of emission so on the left hand side if ##P_1## is emitted power, the second term should have a negative sign in front with the understanding that ##c## is positive.

If you reverse the sign of ##c## in your equations, the total power becomes $$P_1'+P_2' = \frac{P_1 +P_2}{1+c} <(P_1+P_2)$$ which makes eminent sense. The whole is less that the sum of the parts as the spheres absorb a fraction of each other's energy.
 
kuruman said:
I don't understand this equation ##P_1'=P_1+c \cdot P_2'##. Is ##c## positive or negative?
Positive; it's a ratio of surfaces. But I agree this is the tricky equation. I reasoned that sphere 1 receives (hence the + sign) an additional radiation power of ##c \cdot P_2'## from sphere 2, which eventually after reaching equilibrium again has to be reemited. So it's temperature rises becauses of the extra power absorbed from sphere 2. And vice versa for sphere 2.
 
Maybe I should write

$$P_1'=P_1+c \cdot P_2 \ \ \ , \ \ \ P_2'=P_2+c \cdot P_1$$

to find the new equilibrium, so without the accents on the right hand sides. I'll look at it more closely tomorrow, but clearly I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here.
 
@kuruman I only see now your comment about absorption, emission and minus signs. But isn't the whole point that if (say) sphere 1 absorbs power from sphere 2, eventually this extra energy is reemitted? That's why I choose a plus sign for c.
 
It looks to me that each sphere is radiating into a sky which is slightly obstructed. So the combined radiation measured at a great distance will initially be less than the sum of the two free space powers. But when the two objects reach equilibrium the power measured at a great distance will be the sum of the two.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'A scenario of non-uniform circular motion'
(All the needed diagrams are posted below) My friend came up with the following scenario. Imagine a fixed point and a perfectly rigid rod of a certain length extending radially outwards from this fixed point(it is attached to the fixed point). To the free end of the fixed rod, an object is present and it is capable of changing it's speed(by thruster say or any convenient method. And ignore any resistance). It starts with a certain speed but say it's speed continuously increases as it goes...
Back
Top