Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?How can it be that the sun emits more than a black body?How to understand the thermal radiation?Measuring temperature at a distanceTemperature on the surface of the sun calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann-ruleHow to use Planck's law of Black Body radiation?Can we determine the surface temperature of stars other than the sun by using the black body radiation theory?Does the EM wave or photon in Infra Red radiation contain energy?Could a planet without a Sun sustain human life by internal heat?Temperature of the Sun via Stefan-Boltzmann lawHow can I express the temperature of a black body as a function of time?Time for black body to cool to a given temperature

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Why does AES have exactly 10 rounds for a 128-bit key, 12 for 192 bits and 14 for a 256-bit key size?

Multiplicative persistence

Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced

Microchip documentation does not label CAN buss pins on micro controller pinout diagram

What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?

Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?

I found an audio circuit and I built it just fine, but I find it a bit too quiet. How do I amplify the output so that it is a bit louder?

Why should universal income be universal?

What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?

Biological Blimps: Propulsion

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

Is a Java collection guaranteed to be in a valid, usable state after a ConcurrentModificationException?

Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?

Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?

Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?

Circuit Analysis: Obtaining Close Loop OP - AMP Transfer function

How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?

What does Apple's new App Store requirement mean



Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?


How can it be that the sun emits more than a black body?How to understand the thermal radiation?Measuring temperature at a distanceTemperature on the surface of the sun calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann-ruleHow to use Planck's law of Black Body radiation?Can we determine the surface temperature of stars other than the sun by using the black body radiation theory?Does the EM wave or photon in Infra Red radiation contain energy?Could a planet without a Sun sustain human life by internal heat?Temperature of the Sun via Stefan-Boltzmann lawHow can I express the temperature of a black body as a function of time?Time for black body to cool to a given temperature













21












$begingroup$


Apparently spectral solar radiation is approximated by a black body at 5800 K. The spectral black body distribution (Planck distribution) is shown below (from Incropera, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer), with different temperatures including solar radiation at 5800 K.



enter image description here



  1. The heat flux on an Earth surface perpendicular to sun rays (i.e., the solar constant), is roughly 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. Is this simply the integral of the above distribution?

  2. Why is the sun approximated as a black body at 5800 K? Does this mean that the surface of the sun which is emitting radiation has a temperature of 5800 K? That seems kind of low.

  3. Is solar radiation approximated as a black body at 5800 K only on Earth, or is it the same everywhere? Why don't atmospheric effects and scattering change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth?

EDIT:
The solar constant is approximated by considering the Stefan-Boltzmann law (i.e., the integration of the spectral solar emission), the size of the sun, and the distance from the sun to Earth. A good derivation is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQk04xqvVbU










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday















21












$begingroup$


Apparently spectral solar radiation is approximated by a black body at 5800 K. The spectral black body distribution (Planck distribution) is shown below (from Incropera, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer), with different temperatures including solar radiation at 5800 K.



enter image description here



  1. The heat flux on an Earth surface perpendicular to sun rays (i.e., the solar constant), is roughly 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. Is this simply the integral of the above distribution?

  2. Why is the sun approximated as a black body at 5800 K? Does this mean that the surface of the sun which is emitting radiation has a temperature of 5800 K? That seems kind of low.

  3. Is solar radiation approximated as a black body at 5800 K only on Earth, or is it the same everywhere? Why don't atmospheric effects and scattering change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth?

EDIT:
The solar constant is approximated by considering the Stefan-Boltzmann law (i.e., the integration of the spectral solar emission), the size of the sun, and the distance from the sun to Earth. A good derivation is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQk04xqvVbU










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday













21












21








21


7



$begingroup$


Apparently spectral solar radiation is approximated by a black body at 5800 K. The spectral black body distribution (Planck distribution) is shown below (from Incropera, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer), with different temperatures including solar radiation at 5800 K.



enter image description here



  1. The heat flux on an Earth surface perpendicular to sun rays (i.e., the solar constant), is roughly 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. Is this simply the integral of the above distribution?

  2. Why is the sun approximated as a black body at 5800 K? Does this mean that the surface of the sun which is emitting radiation has a temperature of 5800 K? That seems kind of low.

  3. Is solar radiation approximated as a black body at 5800 K only on Earth, or is it the same everywhere? Why don't atmospheric effects and scattering change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth?

EDIT:
The solar constant is approximated by considering the Stefan-Boltzmann law (i.e., the integration of the spectral solar emission), the size of the sun, and the distance from the sun to Earth. A good derivation is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQk04xqvVbU










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Apparently spectral solar radiation is approximated by a black body at 5800 K. The spectral black body distribution (Planck distribution) is shown below (from Incropera, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer), with different temperatures including solar radiation at 5800 K.



enter image description here



  1. The heat flux on an Earth surface perpendicular to sun rays (i.e., the solar constant), is roughly 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. Is this simply the integral of the above distribution?

  2. Why is the sun approximated as a black body at 5800 K? Does this mean that the surface of the sun which is emitting radiation has a temperature of 5800 K? That seems kind of low.

  3. Is solar radiation approximated as a black body at 5800 K only on Earth, or is it the same everywhere? Why don't atmospheric effects and scattering change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth?

EDIT:
The solar constant is approximated by considering the Stefan-Boltzmann law (i.e., the integration of the spectral solar emission), the size of the sun, and the distance from the sun to Earth. A good derivation is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQk04xqvVbU







thermodynamics electromagnetic-radiation temperature astrophysics thermal-radiation






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 22 hours ago









Qmechanic

106k121961224




106k121961224










asked yesterday









DrewDrew

841716




841716







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday







1




1




$begingroup$
Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
yesterday




$begingroup$
Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
$endgroup$
– Drew
yesterday




$begingroup$
@KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
$endgroup$
– Drew
yesterday










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















38












$begingroup$

  1. Yes - the integral of the spectrum you refer to gives the total power per unit area emitted from the surface of the sun. If you multiply that by a factor of $left(fractextSolar Radius1text AUright)^2$ to account for the $1/r^2$ dependence of intensity on distance, then you'll get the solar constant you quote.

  2. Yes. The sun is not at a single uniform temperature - the radiation which reaches Earth is mostly emitted from the photosphere (~6000 K) but the temperature varies dramatically between the different layers of the sun.
    enter image description here

Source



  1. Everywhere. The sun is very nearly an ideal black body. This is a property of the sun, not of a particular vantage point from which you're observing it. Furthermore, atmospheric effects dramatically change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth.

    The upper atmosphere blocks nearly all of the radiation at higher frequencies than UV, and quite a lot of the IR spectrum is absorbed and scattered by greenhouse gases. Visible light passes through without much trouble (which is a substantial part of why we evolved to be sensitive to those frequencies) but the facts that the sky is blue and that sunsets are beautiful demonstrate that the atmosphere scatters visible light as well.

enter image description here



Source






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    yesterday



















19












$begingroup$

As a complement to the other answers, I'd like to point out that if you measure the solar spectrum at a very high resolution, you see very large variations in spectral radiance over very short wavelength scales. Here is a figure that I made for my PhD thesis to illustrate this:



High resolution solar spectrum



A high resolution solar spectrum (source here) is plotted in grey and the same spectrum with degraded resolution is plotted in black. The lower panels show close-ups of smaller wavelength regions. This is the solar spectrum as seen from space, i.e. there are no effects from Earth's atmosphere present.



These variations are due to a multitude of absorption lines (normally referred to as Fraunhofer lines) caused by absorption from gases in the colder outer parts of the photosphere (and to some extent in the chromosphere).



Hence, the ~5800 K black body spectrum is not a good description of the solar spectrum at very fine wavelength scales. But it's a reasonable approximation on larger scales.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
    $endgroup$
    – Peter A. Schneider
    17 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

  1. The solar constant ($S$) is the energy received per unit area perpendicular to the rays at 1AU distance (see wikipedia). Thus, mathematically, it represents the total energy emitted by the sun divided by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of $R$=1 AU:
    $$S=fracP_emitted4pi R^2$$
    Usually, one can use the Stefan-Boltzman law to compute $P_emitted=sigma T^2times A_Sun$ by the sun which is considered a black body here and where $A_Sun$ is the total area of the sun's surface, $sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $T$ the black body's surface temperature. So:
    $$S=sigma T^4left(fracR_SunRright)^2approx1380W/m^2$$
    By plugging numbers: $R=$1AU$=150times 10^9m$, $R_Sun=6.957times 10^8m$, $T=5800K$ and $sigma=5.67times 10^-8W/m^2K$, we get approximately the same Solar constant.


  2. The definition of a black body is a body that absorbs all incoming radiations and that emits light solely due to it's temperature. In astronomy, since stars are really shiny objects and that they are really distant from each other, they can be considered black bodies since we approximate that the light we get from them is almost entirely emitted by their surface and is not reflected light from another star. In other words, they are approximated by black bodies because we can be pretty sure that the light they emit is solely due to their temperature.
    Approximating the sun as a black body effectively means that it's surface temperature is 5800K. And, indeed, if we look at the most dominant wavelength of the sun spectrum, the maximal intensity comes from green wavelength which corresponds to a black body emitting radiation at a temperature of 5800K. For more info look at the Wien's displacement law.


  3. The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective. The sun's intensity spectrum is roughly the one of a perfect black body minus absorption by the sun's atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere depending of where we measure the spectrum. See the sunlight article on wikipedia.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
    $endgroup$
    – thermomagnetic condensed boson
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$

A point worth mentioning, is that the temperature of the black body may be a bit surprising. This graph might be useful:
enter image description heregraph from libretexts



The core of the sun is many millions of degrees. But we never see that temperature. Its surrounded by a convective zone, to the extent that photons can take millions of years to escape from the core, through the radiative and convection zones, to the surface. At the surface, the sun is indeed only a very modest few thousand degrees. (Although specific phenomenas such as flares may be much hotter)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467613%2fwhy-is-the-sun-approximated-as-a-black-body-at-5800-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    38












    $begingroup$

    1. Yes - the integral of the spectrum you refer to gives the total power per unit area emitted from the surface of the sun. If you multiply that by a factor of $left(fractextSolar Radius1text AUright)^2$ to account for the $1/r^2$ dependence of intensity on distance, then you'll get the solar constant you quote.

    2. Yes. The sun is not at a single uniform temperature - the radiation which reaches Earth is mostly emitted from the photosphere (~6000 K) but the temperature varies dramatically between the different layers of the sun.
      enter image description here

    Source



    1. Everywhere. The sun is very nearly an ideal black body. This is a property of the sun, not of a particular vantage point from which you're observing it. Furthermore, atmospheric effects dramatically change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth.

      The upper atmosphere blocks nearly all of the radiation at higher frequencies than UV, and quite a lot of the IR spectrum is absorbed and scattered by greenhouse gases. Visible light passes through without much trouble (which is a substantial part of why we evolved to be sensitive to those frequencies) but the facts that the sky is blue and that sunsets are beautiful demonstrate that the atmosphere scatters visible light as well.

    enter image description here



    Source






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      yesterday
















    38












    $begingroup$

    1. Yes - the integral of the spectrum you refer to gives the total power per unit area emitted from the surface of the sun. If you multiply that by a factor of $left(fractextSolar Radius1text AUright)^2$ to account for the $1/r^2$ dependence of intensity on distance, then you'll get the solar constant you quote.

    2. Yes. The sun is not at a single uniform temperature - the radiation which reaches Earth is mostly emitted from the photosphere (~6000 K) but the temperature varies dramatically between the different layers of the sun.
      enter image description here

    Source



    1. Everywhere. The sun is very nearly an ideal black body. This is a property of the sun, not of a particular vantage point from which you're observing it. Furthermore, atmospheric effects dramatically change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth.

      The upper atmosphere blocks nearly all of the radiation at higher frequencies than UV, and quite a lot of the IR spectrum is absorbed and scattered by greenhouse gases. Visible light passes through without much trouble (which is a substantial part of why we evolved to be sensitive to those frequencies) but the facts that the sky is blue and that sunsets are beautiful demonstrate that the atmosphere scatters visible light as well.

    enter image description here



    Source






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      yesterday














    38












    38








    38





    $begingroup$

    1. Yes - the integral of the spectrum you refer to gives the total power per unit area emitted from the surface of the sun. If you multiply that by a factor of $left(fractextSolar Radius1text AUright)^2$ to account for the $1/r^2$ dependence of intensity on distance, then you'll get the solar constant you quote.

    2. Yes. The sun is not at a single uniform temperature - the radiation which reaches Earth is mostly emitted from the photosphere (~6000 K) but the temperature varies dramatically between the different layers of the sun.
      enter image description here

    Source



    1. Everywhere. The sun is very nearly an ideal black body. This is a property of the sun, not of a particular vantage point from which you're observing it. Furthermore, atmospheric effects dramatically change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth.

      The upper atmosphere blocks nearly all of the radiation at higher frequencies than UV, and quite a lot of the IR spectrum is absorbed and scattered by greenhouse gases. Visible light passes through without much trouble (which is a substantial part of why we evolved to be sensitive to those frequencies) but the facts that the sky is blue and that sunsets are beautiful demonstrate that the atmosphere scatters visible light as well.

    enter image description here



    Source






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    1. Yes - the integral of the spectrum you refer to gives the total power per unit area emitted from the surface of the sun. If you multiply that by a factor of $left(fractextSolar Radius1text AUright)^2$ to account for the $1/r^2$ dependence of intensity on distance, then you'll get the solar constant you quote.

    2. Yes. The sun is not at a single uniform temperature - the radiation which reaches Earth is mostly emitted from the photosphere (~6000 K) but the temperature varies dramatically between the different layers of the sun.
      enter image description here

    Source



    1. Everywhere. The sun is very nearly an ideal black body. This is a property of the sun, not of a particular vantage point from which you're observing it. Furthermore, atmospheric effects dramatically change measurements of the solar spectrum on Earth.

      The upper atmosphere blocks nearly all of the radiation at higher frequencies than UV, and quite a lot of the IR spectrum is absorbed and scattered by greenhouse gases. Visible light passes through without much trouble (which is a substantial part of why we evolved to be sensitive to those frequencies) but the facts that the sky is blue and that sunsets are beautiful demonstrate that the atmosphere scatters visible light as well.

    enter image description here



    Source







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 22 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    J. MurrayJ. Murray

    8,3052924




    8,3052924











    • $begingroup$
      How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      yesterday

















    • $begingroup$
      How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    How does intensity have a $1/r^2$ dependence? I think radiant flux has a $1/r^2$ dependence due to the definition of a solid angle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_intensity
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    yesterday












    19












    $begingroup$

    As a complement to the other answers, I'd like to point out that if you measure the solar spectrum at a very high resolution, you see very large variations in spectral radiance over very short wavelength scales. Here is a figure that I made for my PhD thesis to illustrate this:



    High resolution solar spectrum



    A high resolution solar spectrum (source here) is plotted in grey and the same spectrum with degraded resolution is plotted in black. The lower panels show close-ups of smaller wavelength regions. This is the solar spectrum as seen from space, i.e. there are no effects from Earth's atmosphere present.



    These variations are due to a multitude of absorption lines (normally referred to as Fraunhofer lines) caused by absorption from gases in the colder outer parts of the photosphere (and to some extent in the chromosphere).



    Hence, the ~5800 K black body spectrum is not a good description of the solar spectrum at very fine wavelength scales. But it's a reasonable approximation on larger scales.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
      $endgroup$
      – Peter A. Schneider
      17 hours ago















    19












    $begingroup$

    As a complement to the other answers, I'd like to point out that if you measure the solar spectrum at a very high resolution, you see very large variations in spectral radiance over very short wavelength scales. Here is a figure that I made for my PhD thesis to illustrate this:



    High resolution solar spectrum



    A high resolution solar spectrum (source here) is plotted in grey and the same spectrum with degraded resolution is plotted in black. The lower panels show close-ups of smaller wavelength regions. This is the solar spectrum as seen from space, i.e. there are no effects from Earth's atmosphere present.



    These variations are due to a multitude of absorption lines (normally referred to as Fraunhofer lines) caused by absorption from gases in the colder outer parts of the photosphere (and to some extent in the chromosphere).



    Hence, the ~5800 K black body spectrum is not a good description of the solar spectrum at very fine wavelength scales. But it's a reasonable approximation on larger scales.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
      $endgroup$
      – Peter A. Schneider
      17 hours ago













    19












    19








    19





    $begingroup$

    As a complement to the other answers, I'd like to point out that if you measure the solar spectrum at a very high resolution, you see very large variations in spectral radiance over very short wavelength scales. Here is a figure that I made for my PhD thesis to illustrate this:



    High resolution solar spectrum



    A high resolution solar spectrum (source here) is plotted in grey and the same spectrum with degraded resolution is plotted in black. The lower panels show close-ups of smaller wavelength regions. This is the solar spectrum as seen from space, i.e. there are no effects from Earth's atmosphere present.



    These variations are due to a multitude of absorption lines (normally referred to as Fraunhofer lines) caused by absorption from gases in the colder outer parts of the photosphere (and to some extent in the chromosphere).



    Hence, the ~5800 K black body spectrum is not a good description of the solar spectrum at very fine wavelength scales. But it's a reasonable approximation on larger scales.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    As a complement to the other answers, I'd like to point out that if you measure the solar spectrum at a very high resolution, you see very large variations in spectral radiance over very short wavelength scales. Here is a figure that I made for my PhD thesis to illustrate this:



    High resolution solar spectrum



    A high resolution solar spectrum (source here) is plotted in grey and the same spectrum with degraded resolution is plotted in black. The lower panels show close-ups of smaller wavelength regions. This is the solar spectrum as seen from space, i.e. there are no effects from Earth's atmosphere present.



    These variations are due to a multitude of absorption lines (normally referred to as Fraunhofer lines) caused by absorption from gases in the colder outer parts of the photosphere (and to some extent in the chromosphere).



    Hence, the ~5800 K black body spectrum is not a good description of the solar spectrum at very fine wavelength scales. But it's a reasonable approximation on larger scales.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 10 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    jkejjkej

    4,8761330




    4,8761330







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
      $endgroup$
      – Peter A. Schneider
      17 hours ago












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
      $endgroup$
      – jkej
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
      $endgroup$
      – Peter A. Schneider
      17 hours ago







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Out of interest, are the v-shaped all-the-way-to-zero drops at 393½ and 397 nm real or somehow an artifact of the processing? The whole thing looks intuitively like the absolute value of an amplitude that drops below the axis and climbs back up again, but I have trouble imagining a physical effect that would cause it to look like that.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm These are two of the strongest Fraunhofer lines. They are listed in the Wikipedia article as the H and K lines, also known together as the Calcium II doublet. I don't believe there is any artifact visible in the plot of them.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    I don't doubt the lines are there; I'm just struggling to understand their shape. Perhaps I should ask that as a new question, though.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ok, I can't say I know exactly why they look like that. I haven't produced the data, so I can't rule out artifacts to 100%, but I would have assumed that they at the very least got the shape of the major Fraunhofer lines correct.
    $endgroup$
    – jkej
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
    $endgroup$
    – Peter A. Schneider
    17 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for sharing your work. Good to see some original data. I learned something new today by visiting this seemingly simple question. (As always: when you look really close things become really complicated ;-). )
    $endgroup$
    – Peter A. Schneider
    17 hours ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    1. The solar constant ($S$) is the energy received per unit area perpendicular to the rays at 1AU distance (see wikipedia). Thus, mathematically, it represents the total energy emitted by the sun divided by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of $R$=1 AU:
      $$S=fracP_emitted4pi R^2$$
      Usually, one can use the Stefan-Boltzman law to compute $P_emitted=sigma T^2times A_Sun$ by the sun which is considered a black body here and where $A_Sun$ is the total area of the sun's surface, $sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $T$ the black body's surface temperature. So:
      $$S=sigma T^4left(fracR_SunRright)^2approx1380W/m^2$$
      By plugging numbers: $R=$1AU$=150times 10^9m$, $R_Sun=6.957times 10^8m$, $T=5800K$ and $sigma=5.67times 10^-8W/m^2K$, we get approximately the same Solar constant.


    2. The definition of a black body is a body that absorbs all incoming radiations and that emits light solely due to it's temperature. In astronomy, since stars are really shiny objects and that they are really distant from each other, they can be considered black bodies since we approximate that the light we get from them is almost entirely emitted by their surface and is not reflected light from another star. In other words, they are approximated by black bodies because we can be pretty sure that the light they emit is solely due to their temperature.
      Approximating the sun as a black body effectively means that it's surface temperature is 5800K. And, indeed, if we look at the most dominant wavelength of the sun spectrum, the maximal intensity comes from green wavelength which corresponds to a black body emitting radiation at a temperature of 5800K. For more info look at the Wien's displacement law.


    3. The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective. The sun's intensity spectrum is roughly the one of a perfect black body minus absorption by the sun's atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere depending of where we measure the spectrum. See the sunlight article on wikipedia.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
      $endgroup$
      – thermomagnetic condensed boson
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago















    5












    $begingroup$

    1. The solar constant ($S$) is the energy received per unit area perpendicular to the rays at 1AU distance (see wikipedia). Thus, mathematically, it represents the total energy emitted by the sun divided by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of $R$=1 AU:
      $$S=fracP_emitted4pi R^2$$
      Usually, one can use the Stefan-Boltzman law to compute $P_emitted=sigma T^2times A_Sun$ by the sun which is considered a black body here and where $A_Sun$ is the total area of the sun's surface, $sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $T$ the black body's surface temperature. So:
      $$S=sigma T^4left(fracR_SunRright)^2approx1380W/m^2$$
      By plugging numbers: $R=$1AU$=150times 10^9m$, $R_Sun=6.957times 10^8m$, $T=5800K$ and $sigma=5.67times 10^-8W/m^2K$, we get approximately the same Solar constant.


    2. The definition of a black body is a body that absorbs all incoming radiations and that emits light solely due to it's temperature. In astronomy, since stars are really shiny objects and that they are really distant from each other, they can be considered black bodies since we approximate that the light we get from them is almost entirely emitted by their surface and is not reflected light from another star. In other words, they are approximated by black bodies because we can be pretty sure that the light they emit is solely due to their temperature.
      Approximating the sun as a black body effectively means that it's surface temperature is 5800K. And, indeed, if we look at the most dominant wavelength of the sun spectrum, the maximal intensity comes from green wavelength which corresponds to a black body emitting radiation at a temperature of 5800K. For more info look at the Wien's displacement law.


    3. The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective. The sun's intensity spectrum is roughly the one of a perfect black body minus absorption by the sun's atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere depending of where we measure the spectrum. See the sunlight article on wikipedia.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
      $endgroup$
      – thermomagnetic condensed boson
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago













    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    1. The solar constant ($S$) is the energy received per unit area perpendicular to the rays at 1AU distance (see wikipedia). Thus, mathematically, it represents the total energy emitted by the sun divided by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of $R$=1 AU:
      $$S=fracP_emitted4pi R^2$$
      Usually, one can use the Stefan-Boltzman law to compute $P_emitted=sigma T^2times A_Sun$ by the sun which is considered a black body here and where $A_Sun$ is the total area of the sun's surface, $sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $T$ the black body's surface temperature. So:
      $$S=sigma T^4left(fracR_SunRright)^2approx1380W/m^2$$
      By plugging numbers: $R=$1AU$=150times 10^9m$, $R_Sun=6.957times 10^8m$, $T=5800K$ and $sigma=5.67times 10^-8W/m^2K$, we get approximately the same Solar constant.


    2. The definition of a black body is a body that absorbs all incoming radiations and that emits light solely due to it's temperature. In astronomy, since stars are really shiny objects and that they are really distant from each other, they can be considered black bodies since we approximate that the light we get from them is almost entirely emitted by their surface and is not reflected light from another star. In other words, they are approximated by black bodies because we can be pretty sure that the light they emit is solely due to their temperature.
      Approximating the sun as a black body effectively means that it's surface temperature is 5800K. And, indeed, if we look at the most dominant wavelength of the sun spectrum, the maximal intensity comes from green wavelength which corresponds to a black body emitting radiation at a temperature of 5800K. For more info look at the Wien's displacement law.


    3. The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective. The sun's intensity spectrum is roughly the one of a perfect black body minus absorption by the sun's atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere depending of where we measure the spectrum. See the sunlight article on wikipedia.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    1. The solar constant ($S$) is the energy received per unit area perpendicular to the rays at 1AU distance (see wikipedia). Thus, mathematically, it represents the total energy emitted by the sun divided by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of $R$=1 AU:
      $$S=fracP_emitted4pi R^2$$
      Usually, one can use the Stefan-Boltzman law to compute $P_emitted=sigma T^2times A_Sun$ by the sun which is considered a black body here and where $A_Sun$ is the total area of the sun's surface, $sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and $T$ the black body's surface temperature. So:
      $$S=sigma T^4left(fracR_SunRright)^2approx1380W/m^2$$
      By plugging numbers: $R=$1AU$=150times 10^9m$, $R_Sun=6.957times 10^8m$, $T=5800K$ and $sigma=5.67times 10^-8W/m^2K$, we get approximately the same Solar constant.


    2. The definition of a black body is a body that absorbs all incoming radiations and that emits light solely due to it's temperature. In astronomy, since stars are really shiny objects and that they are really distant from each other, they can be considered black bodies since we approximate that the light we get from them is almost entirely emitted by their surface and is not reflected light from another star. In other words, they are approximated by black bodies because we can be pretty sure that the light they emit is solely due to their temperature.
      Approximating the sun as a black body effectively means that it's surface temperature is 5800K. And, indeed, if we look at the most dominant wavelength of the sun spectrum, the maximal intensity comes from green wavelength which corresponds to a black body emitting radiation at a temperature of 5800K. For more info look at the Wien's displacement law.


    3. The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective. The sun's intensity spectrum is roughly the one of a perfect black body minus absorption by the sun's atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere depending of where we measure the spectrum. See the sunlight article on wikipedia.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    fgoudrafgoudra

    52227




    52227











    • $begingroup$
      Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
      $endgroup$
      – thermomagnetic condensed boson
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
      $endgroup$
      – thermomagnetic condensed boson
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    Why do we divide the emitted power from the sun by the surface area of a sphere with radius $R$ = 1 AU? I know that's the distance to the earth, but I don't see how that gives us the heat flux on the earth. Furthermore, the emitted power $P_emitted$ is the total power emitted by the sun, and only some of that will hit Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday













    $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
    $endgroup$
    – thermomagnetic condensed boson
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    I am not quite convinced by the sentence "The sun is considered a black body, not only from the perspective of the Earth but from any perspective." The answer by jkej casts serious doubts on it, IMO.
    $endgroup$
    – thermomagnetic condensed boson
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @thermomagneticcondensedboson Not really. It's not like there are any absolutes in science - all of our models have a purpose. For mundane purposes, the Sun is close enough to being a blackbody; for things that depend on the imperfections, we often still distinguish the absorption lines etc. by comparison to the ideal blackbody radiation (e.g. stellar spectroscopy). You use the model you need for what you're trying to do, and simplicity trumps precision unless you absolutely need that precision. The blackbody curve is simple; the real spectrum is anything but.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    A point worth mentioning, is that the temperature of the black body may be a bit surprising. This graph might be useful:
    enter image description heregraph from libretexts



    The core of the sun is many millions of degrees. But we never see that temperature. Its surrounded by a convective zone, to the extent that photons can take millions of years to escape from the core, through the radiative and convection zones, to the surface. At the surface, the sun is indeed only a very modest few thousand degrees. (Although specific phenomenas such as flares may be much hotter)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      A point worth mentioning, is that the temperature of the black body may be a bit surprising. This graph might be useful:
      enter image description heregraph from libretexts



      The core of the sun is many millions of degrees. But we never see that temperature. Its surrounded by a convective zone, to the extent that photons can take millions of years to escape from the core, through the radiative and convection zones, to the surface. At the surface, the sun is indeed only a very modest few thousand degrees. (Although specific phenomenas such as flares may be much hotter)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        A point worth mentioning, is that the temperature of the black body may be a bit surprising. This graph might be useful:
        enter image description heregraph from libretexts



        The core of the sun is many millions of degrees. But we never see that temperature. Its surrounded by a convective zone, to the extent that photons can take millions of years to escape from the core, through the radiative and convection zones, to the surface. At the surface, the sun is indeed only a very modest few thousand degrees. (Although specific phenomenas such as flares may be much hotter)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        A point worth mentioning, is that the temperature of the black body may be a bit surprising. This graph might be useful:
        enter image description heregraph from libretexts



        The core of the sun is many millions of degrees. But we never see that temperature. Its surrounded by a convective zone, to the extent that photons can take millions of years to escape from the core, through the radiative and convection zones, to the surface. At the surface, the sun is indeed only a very modest few thousand degrees. (Although specific phenomenas such as flares may be much hotter)







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 22 hours ago

























        answered yesterday









        StilezStilez

        1,408413




        1,408413



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467613%2fwhy-is-the-sun-approximated-as-a-black-body-at-5800-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bulk add to cart function issuecart vs. mini cart issue … rwd themeRedirect Add to cart button to cart pageAdd to cart issue - Magento 2.1The requested Payment Method is not available When creating an orderM2: reason add-to-cart might not function in production modeAdd to cart issue in some android devicesMagento 2 - custom price can not add to subtotal and grand total after add to cartAdd to cart codeIssue with my cart module on pdp and cart pages, just keeps spinningBulk price and quantity update using rest api

            Magento2 - How to hide price filter only in specific categories?Multiselect price filter attribute in layered navigationhide only some categories from layered navigation in magentoRemove Price Filter on certain categoriescustomize layered price filter?Hide Price for a particular customer groupPrice filter in layered navigation not working correctly with price including tax in magento 2.2.3Magento 2 how to hide attribute at Layered navigation?Magento 2. how to hide price only for specific categoriesMagento 2 How can I hide the price and total from cart and checkout summary?Magento2: Can we add navigation layered filter like price filter for other attribute?