Finding flux from apparent and absolute magnitude

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the flux from an unobscured star with an apparent magnitude of 6 and an absolute magnitude equal to that of the Sun. It is established that stars with the same absolute magnitude have the same luminosity, but calculating their fluxes independently requires a reference point. The relationship between apparent magnitudes and fluxes is highlighted, emphasizing that without a known reference flux, one cannot determine the individual flux values. The conversation concludes that having only a ratio of fluxes does not provide enough information to solve for the absolute fluxes of each star. Thus, additional data or reference points are necessary for accurate flux calculations.
sikrut
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
How much flux reaches Earth from an unobscured star?

##m_{sun} = -26.83## and ##M_{sun} = +4.74##
##m = +6## and ##M = +4.74##

Calculated distance of target star:

##d = 17.86 pc##

Now, here I'm trying to find the flux of a star that has the same absolute magnitude as our sun, but has an apparent magnitude of 6.

Does it make sense to assume that because their absolute mags are the same, that the ratio of their luminosities should be 1? Further more, under that assumption, I understand how to calculate the ratio of their fluxes (sun to star), but I am a bit lost when trying to calculate their fluxes independently...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, if the stars have the same absolute magnitude, they have the same luminosity.
 
You can't calculate the flux from apparent magnitude independently. You need some reference point. The apparent magnitudes of two sources are related by
$$m - m_\text{ref} = -2.5 \log \frac{F}{F_\text{ref}}$$ where F is the flux and the subscript ref refers to a known reference.
 
But what if the absolute magnitudes and distances of those stars are known?
 
Is there not some way to manipulate the flux ratio so that you can calculate the fluxes of each star?
 
No. If all you have is, for example, ##F/F_\text{ref} = 2##, there's no way to differentiate between the case where (neglecting units) ##F=1## and ##F_\text{ref} = 1/2## and where ##F=2## and ##F_\text{ref}=1##. You have only one equation but two unknowns.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top