- #1
tarekatpf
- 140
- 1
Do less bright stars have redder spectrum?
Bandersnatch said:Not necessarily. Stars radiate pretty much like black bodies, so the spectrum depends on temperature like so:
The hotter the star, the more it radiates, and the more is the spectrum shifted towards higher frequencies. Colder stars would then normally radiate less and be redder.
But that doesn't take into account the radiative area of the star(so, size). Red giants, for example, are relatively cold, and radiate small amounts of energy per unit surface area, but since the area is so large, they can be extremely bright.
However, stars on the main sequence(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) have their temperatures and sizes dependent on mass only(and age and metallicity, but to a lesser degree). So as long as you restrict yourself to these only, your statement is true.
The color of a star is determined by its surface temperature. Cooler stars have a redder spectrum, while hotter stars have a bluer spectrum.
Brighter stars tend to have a bluer spectrum, while dimmer stars have a redder spectrum. This is because brighter stars have higher surface temperatures.
No, not all red stars are dimmer than blue stars. The brightness of a star is dependent on its size, temperature, and distance from Earth. There are some red giants, for example, that are actually brighter than some blue main sequence stars.
Yes, a star's color can change over time. As a star evolves, its surface temperature changes, which can cause its color to shift from red to blue or vice versa.
Yes, the color of a star can provide clues about its age. Generally, younger stars are bluer in color, while older stars tend to be redder. However, other factors such as a star's mass and chemical composition can also affect its color, making it difficult to accurately determine its age based on color alone.