Stefan-boltzmann solved for temperature?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine the effective temperature of a star based on its mass and luminosity. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involved, troubleshoot coding implementations, and clarify units of measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and its application to find the effective temperature of a star, suggesting a formula for Teff based on luminosity and surface area.
  • Another participant confirms the formula but requests clarification on the coding implementation, specifically the numerical values used in the calculations.
  • A participant shares their Python code for calculating luminosity and effective temperature, indicating they suspect unit conversion issues may be causing incorrect results.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of the mass-luminosity relation used in the calculations, with a suggestion that it may not be correctly applied.
  • Participants discuss the potential confusion between different forms of the mass-luminosity relation and the implications of using the Sun as a reference point.
  • One participant reflects on their unit conversions and expresses uncertainty about their understanding of the units involved in the calculations.
  • A later post indicates that a participant resolved their issue by recognizing a mistake in combining different units of power (erg/s with watts).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct application of the mass-luminosity relation or the appropriate units for calculations. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the formulas and unit conversions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of unit conversions and the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, indicating potential misunderstandings in the mathematical relationships involved.

~jet
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
My physics is extremely rusty (I was bored to death back in school and had no practical application of the stuff to make it interesting and/or truly sink it.) Now, I have an application, and while I have a long way to go, it is pleasurable to be comprehending things as I go.

To a point, and here is where I ask for some help and confirmations. Namely, I need to find the effective (surface?) temperature of a star (presumably main sequence and not extraordinary in mass) based on its mass.

First, smash my face in if I miscombobulated the stefan-boltzmann law:

L = 4[itex]\pi[/itex]R[itex]^{2}[/itex][itex]\sigma[/itex]T[itex]^{4}_{eff}[/itex]

... to look for T[itex]_{eff}[/itex]: (and turning 4[itex]\pi[/itex]R[itex]^{2}[/itex] into A for now)

T[itex]_{eff}[/itex] = [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A\sigma}[/itex]

No?

Walp, I've already plugged this into my code, and I'm getting absolutely absurd results for a near-solar-mass star: 4.23581197119e+23 (x10[itex]^{23}[/itex] for the noncoders out there) when I'm expecting to get roughly 5700-5800K. So I am forced to assume either that I flubbed my reconfiguring of S-BL or I am horribly misreading the S-B constant:

[itex]\sigma[/itex] = 5.670373(21)×10[itex]^{−8}[/itex]Jm[itex]^{−2}[/itex]s[itex]^{−1}[/itex]K[itex]^{−4}[/itex].

That's quite a unit... I'm almost certain I'm not reading it correctly. Tips?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
~jet said:
My physics is extremely rusty (I was bored to death back in school and had no practical application of the stuff to make it interesting and/or truly sink it.) Now, I have an application, and while I have a long way to go, it is pleasurable to be comprehending things as I go.

To a point, and here is where I ask for some help and confirmations. Namely, I need to find the effective (surface?) temperature of a star (presumably main sequence and not extraordinary in mass) based on its mass.

First, smash my face in if I miscombobulated the stefan-boltzmann law:

L = 4[itex]\pi[/itex]R[itex]^{2}[/itex][itex]\sigma[/itex]T[itex]^{4}_{eff}[/itex]

... to look for T[itex]_{eff}[/itex]: (and turning 4[itex]\pi[/itex]R[itex]^{2}[/itex] into A for now)

T[itex]_{eff}[/itex] = [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A\sigma}[/itex]

Yes, if you mean [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/\left(A\sigma\right)}[/itex] or [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A/\sigma}[/itex], and I get the correct result using this.
~jet said:
Walp, I've already plugged this into my code, and I'm getting absolutely absurd results for a near-solar-mass star: 4.23581197119e+23 (x10[itex]^{23}[/itex] for the noncoders out there) when I'm expecting to get roughly 5700-5800K. So I am forced to assume either that I flubbed my reconfiguring of S-BL or I am horribly misreading the S-B constant:

[itex]\sigma[/itex] = 5.670373(21)×10[itex]^{−8}[/itex]Jm[itex]^{−2}[/itex]s[itex]^{−1}[/itex]K[itex]^{−4}[/itex].

That's quite a unit... I'm almost certain I'm not reading it correctly. Tips?

For troubleshooting, it would help if you posted [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A\sigma}[/itex] exactly as you coded it, including the numerical values that you used.
 
George Jones said:
Yes, if you mean [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/\left(A\sigma\right)}[/itex] or [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A/\sigma}[/itex], and I get the correct result using this.

Yip yip, that's what I mean; good to hear.


George Jones said:
For troubleshooting, it would help if you posted [itex]\sqrt[4]{L/A\sigma}[/itex] exactly as you coded it, including the numerical values that you used.

the code is simple python, accepting solar masses as an argument:

star.mass = 1.98892e+30 (kg)
star.luminosity = star.mass ** 3.5 (1.1095850642735086e+106)
star.radius = (star.mass ** 0.8) * solar_radius (~695,500,000m)
star.surface_area = (4 * pi * (self.radius ** 2)) (~6.078608e+18 m2
star.effective_temperature = (self.luminosity / (self.surface_area * stefan_boltzmann_constant )) ** 0.25 (~4.2358e+23 wawahoozit units)

The code seems fine to me (assuming I've taken accurate information from the solar-comparative equations peppering the web.) I think I am mangling the units. Probably starting with luminosity... looking at it in erg/s (on the order of 1033) I think I see a place to start
 
~jet said:
star.luminosity = star.mass ** 3.5 (1.1095850642735086e+106)

This can't be correct. I think it should be something like
[tex]\frac{L}{L_{Sun}} = \left( \frac{M}{M_{Sun}} \right)^{3.5}.[/tex]
 
In any event, I shall plug away it at again; converting my radius to cm, I was able to get closER (as (erg/s)/(cm2erg/scm2K4) canceled down a lot easier)... at my next opportunity, I see what happens when I try that as you show it instead.
 
George Jones said:
This can't be correct. I think it should be something like
[tex]\frac{L}{L_{Sun}} = \left( \frac{M}{M_{Sun}} \right)^{3.5}.[/tex]

Kay, so still doing something wrong... I'm getting 32486K for a sunmass star when I use what wikipedia claims. Am I misconstruing your equation when I flip it to

[tex]L = \left(\left( \frac{M}{M_{Sun}} \right)^{3.5}\right)L_{Sun}.[/tex]

Further, why do you say 3.5 and wikipedia claim 4?
 
Perhaps I'm also asking the wrong question; I may still be blending my units poorly.

[itex]T = \sqrt[4]{\frac{L}{A\sigma}}[/itex] and I try to read this in units:

[itex]\frac{erg/s}{\frac{cm^{2} erg}{s cm^{2} K^{4}}}[/itex]

If that isn't butchered, it does have a pleasing cascade of cancellations that lead me to

[itex]\frac{1}{K^{4}}[/itex]

That's either wrong or I don't know how to ~read~ that properly. Beware, I'm many years out of practice and didn't have anything by way of application at the time to let it truly sink in.
 
Solved it; I was unwittingly trying to combine erg/s with watts
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K