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

Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?

How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?

Simulating a probability of 1 of 2^N with less than N random bits

Can a controlled ghast be a leader of a pack of ghouls?

Why does this part of the Space Shuttle launch pad seem to be floating in air?

Bob has never been a M before

I2C signal and power over long range (10meter cable)

The most efficient algorithm to find all possible integer pairs which sum to a given integer

word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome

Giant Toughroad SLR 2 for 200 miles in two days, will it make it?

Why does the compiler allow throws when the method will never throw the Exception

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)

Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?

Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Can a Gentile theist be saved?

Teaching indefinite integrals that require special-casing

Is there enough fresh water in the world to eradicate the drinking water crisis?

What does the acronym SPUA stand for?

Adding empty element to declared container without declaring type of element

Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?

Can one define wavefronts for waves travelling on a stretched string?

Invariance of results when scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, is there a proof?

What does the "3am" section means in manpages?



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











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Mar 20 at 15:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:36










  • $begingroup$
    Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
    $endgroup$
    – Hot Licks
    Mar 22 at 1:05















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











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Mar 20 at 15:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:36










  • $begingroup$
    Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
    $endgroup$
    – Hot Licks
    Mar 22 at 1:05













21












21








21


9



$begingroup$


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 Mar 21 at 1:34









Qmechanic

106k121961227




106k121961227










asked Mar 20 at 14:25









DrewDrew

847716




847716







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Mar 20 at 15:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:36










  • $begingroup$
    Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
    $endgroup$
    – Hot Licks
    Mar 22 at 1:05












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Mar 20 at 15:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:36










  • $begingroup$
    Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
    $endgroup$
    – Hot Licks
    Mar 22 at 1:05







2




2




$begingroup$
Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
Mar 20 at 15:02




$begingroup$
Related, if not dupe of, physics.stackexchange.com/q/130209/25301
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
Mar 20 at 15:02




1




1




$begingroup$
@KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
$endgroup$
– Drew
Mar 20 at 19:36




$begingroup$
@KyleKanos Definitely not a dupe, I asked very different questions here.
$endgroup$
– Drew
Mar 20 at 19:36












$begingroup$
Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
$endgroup$
– Hot Licks
Mar 22 at 1:05




$begingroup$
Because it's actually a lump of black stuff that's that hot (figuratively speaking, at least).
$endgroup$
– Hot Licks
Mar 22 at 1:05










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















42












$begingroup$

  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
    Mar 20 at 19:34






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Mar 20 at 19:42



















21












$begingroup$

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
    Mar 20 at 19:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 20 at 19:44






  • 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
    Mar 20 at 19:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 7:04






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Shpilkin
    Mar 22 at 14:29



















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
    Mar 20 at 16:52











  • $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Mar 20 at 19:28










  • $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:30






  • 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
    Mar 21 at 9:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
    $endgroup$
    – cmaster
    Mar 21 at 22:47


















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









    42












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 20 at 19:34






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      Mar 20 at 19:42
















    42












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 20 at 19:34






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      Mar 20 at 19:42














    42












    42








    42





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 21 at 1:16

























    answered Mar 20 at 14:46









    J. MurrayJ. Murray

    8,34521024




    8,34521024











    • $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 20 at 19:34






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      Mar 20 at 19:42

















    • $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 20 at 19:34






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      Mar 20 at 19:42
















    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 19:34




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 19:34




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Mar 20 at 19:42





    $begingroup$
    @Drew I am using the terminology as defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity_(physics)
    $endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Mar 20 at 19:42












    21












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 20 at 19:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 20 at 19:44






    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:50






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 7:04






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
      $endgroup$
      – Alex Shpilkin
      Mar 22 at 14:29
















    21












    $begingroup$

    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
      Mar 20 at 19:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 20 at 19:44






    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:50






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 7:04






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
      $endgroup$
      – Alex Shpilkin
      Mar 22 at 14:29














    21












    21








    21





    $begingroup$

    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 Mar 21 at 13:32

























    answered Mar 20 at 18:09









    jkejjkej

    4,8961330




    4,8961330







    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 20 at 19:44






    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:50






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 7:04






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
      $endgroup$
      – Alex Shpilkin
      Mar 22 at 14:29













    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Mar 20 at 19:44






    • 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
      Mar 20 at 19:50






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 21 at 7:04






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
      $endgroup$
      – Alex Shpilkin
      Mar 22 at 14:29








    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
    Mar 20 at 19:26




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 19:26




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 20 at 19:44




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 20 at 19:44




    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
    Mar 20 at 19:50




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 19:50




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 7:04




    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 21 at 7:04




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Shpilkin
    Mar 22 at 14:29





    $begingroup$
    @Barney It is a different question. A very interesting one, but you really should ask it separately. But in short: (1) lines are never infinitely thin because the emitted wave packets have a finite length (“lifetime=uncertainty broadening”): that’s why particle physicists use “decay width” more or less interchangeably with “state lifetime”; (2) at finite temperature and density, this ludicrously small width is increased by several orders of magnitude, mostly by “thermal=Doppler broadening” and “pressure=collisional broadening” in a gas; [cont.]
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Shpilkin
    Mar 22 at 14:29












    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
      Mar 20 at 16:52











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      Mar 20 at 19:28










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      Mar 20 at 19:30






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 9:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
      $endgroup$
      – cmaster
      Mar 21 at 22:47















    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
      Mar 20 at 16:52











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      Mar 20 at 19:28










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      Mar 20 at 19:30






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 9:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
      $endgroup$
      – cmaster
      Mar 21 at 22:47













    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 Mar 20 at 16:27

























    answered Mar 20 at 14:56









    fgoudrafgoudra

    53927




    53927











    • $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 20 at 16:52











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      Mar 20 at 19:28










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      Mar 20 at 19:30






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 9:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
      $endgroup$
      – cmaster
      Mar 21 at 22:47
















    • $begingroup$
      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
      Mar 20 at 16:52











    • $begingroup$
      @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      Mar 20 at 19:28










    • $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
      $endgroup$
      – Drew
      Mar 20 at 19:30






    • 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
      Mar 21 at 9:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
      $endgroup$
      – cmaster
      Mar 21 at 22:47















    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 16:52





    $begingroup$
    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
    Mar 20 at 16:52













    $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Mar 20 at 19:28




    $begingroup$
    @Drew: The second sentence in that comment is the correct answer to the first one :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Mar 20 at 19:28












    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:30




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm Ah I see now. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – Drew
    Mar 20 at 19:30




    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
    Mar 21 at 9:35




    $begingroup$
    @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
    Mar 21 at 9:35




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
    $endgroup$
    – cmaster
    Mar 21 at 22:47




    $begingroup$
    Whether something can be modeled as a black body or not does not depend on whether you are actually shining light on it. If I put my mirror into a dark room, it won't turn into a black body by magic, it'll still be a highly reflective object that just happens to be in the dark. What's relevant is, whether light would get absorbed if it were shone on the object. So, please, cut out that part about star light reaching the sun!
    $endgroup$
    – cmaster
    Mar 21 at 22:47











    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 Mar 21 at 2:04

























        answered Mar 20 at 22:01









        StilezStilez

        1,428413




        1,428413



























            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

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

            Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?