To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Emission Spectrum Vs Black Body Spectrum
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

flyingbuttressman
We use Emission Spectroscopy to determine the composition of interstellar bodies such as stars and nebulae. This works because certain elements only emit light at certain frequencies.

On the other hand, our sun emits light across a broad range of spectrums, with no prominent spikes in particular spectrums. (Solar Spectrum) This is known as black body radiation.

What is the difference between the light produced by a hot interstellar gas and the light produced by our sun? Is the light from our sun a broad range of elements producing different frequencies or am I misunderstanding the conditions for distinct emission bands?
flyingbuttressman
I might as well share what got me started thinking about this stuff:
Cygnus X-1 Confirmed as Black Hole

Edit: fixed link
Lasand
For one thing, they were observing x-rays from the disc of hot gas. This represents millions of degrees. Our sun is a class G star (5,200-6,000 K).
bar_room_physist
it is a misunderstanding of the differences between a discrete and continuous spectrum. they are really two different things...Read this it will clear it up for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum

classical vs quantized.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Jun 28 2011, 07:50 PM)
it is a misunderstanding of the differences between a discrete and continuous spectrum. they are really two different things...Read this it will clear it up for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum

Thanks for the link. Perhaps you can clear this up. The wiki article for Continuous Spectrum contains this note at the bottom:
QUOTE
Clarification needed: This section, contrary to its title, does not offer a quantum mechanical interpretation of the continuous spectrum. If such an interpretation were to be offered it would explain a very simple and practical question: how is it that the heated piece of a single chemical element in a solid form (say an iron wire) emits a continuous spectrum (light and invisible infrared), in contradiction to the quantum version of the emission mechanism, whereby the discrete energy levels in the iron atom's should only generate a handful of specific spectral frequencies / lines characteristic to this element ?


I get that they are different things, but WHY is it discrete in one case and continuous in another?
bar_room_physist
it's how we choose to do the experiment...i think. perhaps and this is speculative it is an example of wave particle duality.
Lasand
Maybe this will help.

http://www.tutorvista.com/physics/define-emission-spectra

Sithdarth
QUOTE
On the other hand, our sun emits light across a broad range of spectrums, with no prominent spikes in particular spectrums. (Solar Spectrum) This is known as black body radiation.


1) The sun emits light across a broad range of wavelengths. A broad range of spectra (not spectrums) makes absolutely no sense.

2) Black body radiation a bit more complex than just this.

3) The solar spectrum is actually an absorption spectrum superimposed on a black body spectrum.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
On the other hand, our sun emits light across a broad range of spectrums, with no prominent spikes in particular spectrums. (Solar Spectrum) This is known as black body radiation.


1) The sun emits light across a broad range of wavelengths. A broad range of spectra (not spectrums) makes absolutely no sense.

2) Black body radiation a bit more complex than just this.

3) The solar spectrum is actually an absorption spectrum superimposed on a black body spectrum.

We use Emission Spectroscopy to determine the composition of interstellar bodies such as stars and nebulae. This works because certain elements only emit light at certain frequencies.


We use Absorption Spectroscopy mainly to get compositions of stars and those nebulae which are lit from within by stars. We use emission Spectroscopy mainly for nebulae which are ionized due to nearby stars but aren't directly lit by a star. Sometimes you can use both on the same nebula depending on the stage of its life. You'll get light from a star passing through some parts and ionizing other parts.

QUOTE
What is the difference between the light produced by a hot interstellar gas and the light produced by our sun? Is the light from our sun a broad range of elements producing different frequencies or am I misunderstanding the conditions for distinct emission bands?


The sun is so hot that the black body spectrum overpowers any emission due to a specific transition. Instead the transitions tend to remove some of the intensity of the black body spectrum giving us an absorption spectrum via which we can get the chemical composition. Generally speaking if the gas is ionized the only light emits is the characteristic transitions due to relaxations. Also, stars are opaque and surrounded by a lot of gas that doesn't emit light. All the light emission of a star happens within a shell of gas that only absorbs light and doesn't directly emit it. In contrast those nebulae hot enough to be ionized produce light all the edge and they tend to be very dispersed. The dispersion means the atoms are more likely to ionize than emit black body radiation. It is also important to remember that inside say the sun were the light is produced the density is so high it is pretty much like a solid and as such the energy levels tend to be more continuous than the discrete energy levels we see in the rarefied nebulae.

What you use is mainly a function of what you are looking at, where you are looking at it from, and what happened to the light between emission and you.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Jun 29 2011, 12:18 AM)
The sun is so hot that the black body spectrum overpowers any emission due to a specific transition. Instead the transitions tend to remove some of the intensity of the black body spectrum giving us an absorption spectrum via which we can get the chemical composition. Generally speaking if the gas is ionized the only light emits is the characteristic transitions due to relaxations. Also, stars are opaque and surrounded by a lot of gas that doesn't emit light. All the light emission of a star happens within a shell of gas that only absorbs light and doesn't directly emit it. In contrast those nebulae hot enough to be ionized produce light all the edge and they tend to be very dispersed. The dispersion means the atoms are more likely to ionize than emit black body radiation. It is also important to remember that inside say the sun were the light is produced the density is so high it is pretty much like a solid and as such the energy levels tend to be more continuous than the discrete energy levels we see in the rarefied nebulae.

Thank you, this is what I was looking for.
Lasand
sithdarth has pretty well answered FBM's question.

Another take on the matter is that transitions of bound electrons involving the principle quantum numbers result in nice discrete lines.

In and around the sun, bound electrons can be energized to the continuous emission band extending from the limit of the discrete energy levels to the continuous region of possible energy values.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.