B Why Do Stars Show Both Emission and Absorption Spectra?

AI Thread Summary
Stars exhibit both emission and absorption spectra due to their complex internal and external structures. The inner layers of stars emit light as blackbody radiation, while the cooler outer layers absorb specific wavelengths, creating gaps in the observed spectrum. The presence of plasma in stars leads to broadened spectral lines due to collisions and ionization, which differs from isolated atoms. Additionally, some absorption lines arise from cooler regions above the photosphere, which can also emit light under certain conditions, such as during solar flares. Overall, the interaction between emitted light and the star's atmosphere results in the observed absorption spectrum.
Nishantkumar19
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
When you heat things up, they emit specific wavelengths of light, right? Like when you heat up sodium, it emits yellow.

But don't things emit shorter wavelengths of light at higher temperatures? Like how hotter stars are blue and colder stars are yellow. Since stars are mostly hydrogen, shouldn't they be a mixture of just the colors we see in Hydrogen's emission spectrum?

When we see an absorption spectrum of sunlight, there are black gaps for the different elements. But those same elements are heated up in the sun, so they should be emitting light too, right?

Is it that the outer layers of stars are cooler? So the inner layers emit the light, and the outer layers block specific wavelengths of light by absorbing and then scattering them? But surely even the outer layers would be hot enough to be emitting their own light, right?

Please help!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Nishantkumar19 said:
When you heat things up, they emit specific wavelengths of light, right? Like when you heat up sodium, it emits yellow.
Be careful here: that is the case of you heat up a low-pressure sodium vapor. In other words, you have to be in conditions where atoms can still be seen as independent of one another. Simply going to high pressures, where collisions between atoms is more important, will give light that is closer to white. The Wikipedia article on sodium vapor lamps has nice illustrations.

Nishantkumar19 said:
But don't things emit shorter wavelengths of light at higher temperatures? Like how hotter stars are blue and colder stars are yellow. Since stars are mostly hydrogen, shouldn't they be a mixture of just the colors we see in Hydrogen's emission spectrum?
Shorter wavelengths are due to higher-energy electronic excitations. Again, because of the conditions in which the atoms are, each line gets broaden due to collisions, the Doppler effect, etc. Also, in the case of a star, you have a plasma, where many atoms are ionized: it is not only hydrogen (and helium) atoms anymore. Stars are almost perfect blackbodies.
Nishantkumar19 said:
When we see an absorption spectrum of sunlight, there are black gaps for the different elements. But those same elements are heated up in the sun, so they should be emitting light too, right?

Is it that the outer layers of stars are cooler? So the inner layers emit the light, and the outer layers block specific wavelengths of light by absorbing and then scattering them? But surely even the outer layers would be hot enough to be emitting their own light, right?
Emission is mostly from the plasma, which gives wide-spectrum blackbody radiation. That light passes through the star's atmosphere, which is much less dense and atoms can be seen as independent, that's why you get a discrete absorption spectrum. There will be also emission due to the atmosphere, but it is isotropic, so overall there is light "missing." This is the same thing you get in absorption spectroscopy in the lab.
 
  • Like
Likes Nishantkumar19
Alright that clears it up a lot. Thanks!
 
Nishantkumar19 said:
Is it that the outer layers of stars are cooler?
It depends on the line. Some absorption lines are due to scattering, as already explained above, but others (like the famous Sodium "D" lines in the Sun) are due to absorption of the light from the hotter photosphere and replacing it with emission from cooler regions overlying the photosphere, just as you are thinking. Indeed, some lines even receive contribution from the chromosphere, which is hotter than the photosphere, and when the chromosphere gets thick enough (as can happen in solar flares), these lines are actually seen in emission.
So the inner layers emit the light, and the outer layers block specific wavelengths of light by absorbing and then scattering them? But surely even the outer layers would be hot enough to be emitting their own light, right?
Yes, but it's less than what they absorb, if the temperature is lower, and scattering always reduces the light because it bounces some of the light back down were it can be reabsorbed.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top