There are several planets other than Earth that are thought to be able to sustain life of the form we have on Earth, one of the basic requirements for which is to have liquid water on its surface.
One of the Sun-like stars is Tau Ceti. Its radius is 7 9 % of Sun's radius, and its surface temperature is T = 5 3 4 4 K . What is the width of the spherical shell around Tau Ceti ( in k m ) in which planets can have liquid water?
Details and Assumptions:
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
For an Earth-like planet with a reasonable atmosphere and a day which is very much smaller than its year, then we can assume that it is warmed up all over, and so the difference in mean temperature between the day and night sides is not too great, certainly much less than 100 degrees.
This makes the spherical shell model more reasonable, but I concede that the answer only approximates the Goldilocks zone, and it is ridiculous to quote it to 8 sig. fig.!
Log in to reply
Ok, I understand your point that having a day duration much smaller than the year, the whole Earth will warm up and radiate. However, the point is still unclear that why we should take double the surface area of the planet. For the shell it is understandable but for a planet, I still think that we should not take double the surface area.
Log in to reply
Think about a planet that always faced the sun (i.e its day and year were of equal length). Then its night side might be really cold and we could perhaps ignore the radiation out to the rest of the universe, as you suggest.
Now think of a planet with a short day, the night side is now quite warm, maybe only a few degrees cooler than the day side, and it will radiate energy out, away from the star. The point is that only one side of the planet receives energy from the sun, but both sides radiate energy away from the planet.
Anyway, I don't want to become too attached to my model. I would trust it only as the basis for an order of magnitude estimate of the Goldilocks zone, and so don't want to spend long disputing a factor of 2!
Log in to reply
@Peter Macgregor – Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.
In your solution, you assumed a shell of radius R P as a black body and it is radiating both radially outwards and inwards. On the other hand, if we assume a planet whose only one side is facing the star then shouldn't the planet be radiating only radially inwards?
Remember that the radiation energy emitted from one half side of sphere will not be completely intercepted by the star. It depends on the shape factor/configuration factor of star w.r.t. sphere. Similarly, radiation energy emitted from star intercepted by the sphere depends on the shape factor/configuration factor of sphere w.r.t. star. Definition of shape factor for radiation exchange between two bodies say A & B is as Shape factor of body A w.r.t. B is the fraction of total energy emitted by body B intercepted by body A. However shape factor can be neglected for shorter distance or giant bodies.
According to the formula for black body radiation, and if we ignore albedo and emissivity, the temperature of a planet, Tp, depends only on the surface temperature of the sun, Ts, the radius of the sun, R, and the distance between the centers of the sun and the planet, D.
One further constraint, that of liquid water, implies that the surface temperature of the planet must be between 0 and 100 C, or 273 and 373 K. Then, Tp = Ts (R/2D)^0.5. Solving for D, D = 0.5 R (Ts/Tp)^2. R = 695500 * 0.79 = 549445. At the high end, Tp = 373, and the quantity in parentheses squared is 205.265. At the low end, this quantity is 383.184.
To find the thickness of the shell, we multiply the difference between these two numbers by 0.5 R, getting 48878410. This is closer than .01% of the listed correct answer, which means it agrees to 4 significant digits.
Can you elaborate how do you get the temperature of the planet in terms of temperature of the star, that is T p = T s 2 D R ?
Log in to reply
I too would like to understand this.
looking at my solution might help!
I googled an astronomy site for the formula. It is actually a little more complex than shown, but under the assumption that we can ignore the effect of albedo and emissivity, this is what it reduced to. Given that we know nothing about a hypothetical planet, and that these two factors do actually vary, the specification of the correct answer to 8 significant digits is unjustified. Given that my approximation is correct to 4 places, I would be curious to know what assumptions the problem's creator used to calculate the "correct" answer. Incidentally, my calculation, which ignored the 0.15 degree temperature difference in the boiling and freezing points of water from the precise value, appears to be closer to this "correct" answer than Peter Macgregor's, which used the more precise values.
Log in to reply
What is albedo and how this affect this problem?
There is insufficient information to get an answer. Since the problem states that the planet is not rotating, the temperature will depend on the nature of the atmosphere and its viscosity. Wind will distribute the heat energy to some extent to the dark side. The composition of the atmosphere will greatly influence the heat retention - carbon dioxide and methane will greatly increase the surface temperature. The surface composition will also need to be known as the specific heat of the surface rocks and their emissivity will effect the radiation of heat back into space. Finally the temperature will vary considerable over the planet depending on the angle at which the light/heat hits the surface. (On earth it is colder at the poles, warmer at the equator, but this planet is not rotating so there are no poles.)
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Imagine replacing the planet by a huge thin sphere with the star at its centre. The sphere has the same radius as the planet's orbital radius R p and we imagine that the star and the sphere are in thermal equilibrium. We will calculate the radii of the sphere when it has a temperature of 273 (freezing point of water) and 373 K (boiling point of water). Since the supplied data leads us to hope that the size of the planet does not affect the answer, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that the difference between these radii is the answer we are looking for.
There are three key ideas. First of all the power radiated by a black body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature and directly proportional to its area and so to the square of its radius. Secondly we assume that the star and the sphere are in thermal equilibrium. This means that sphere must emit as much power as it receives (other wise it would heat up or cool down and we would not be in equilibrium!). Lastly note that the sphere will emit half its energy back towards the star, and the other half will be radiated away from the outside of the sphere into the rest of the universe. In other words both its inside and outside surface must be included in the calculation - this is the source of the factor of 2.
Putting all this together using s and p as suffices for 'star' and 'planet' we have
T s 4 R s 2 = 2 T p 4 R p 2 ⟹ R p = 2 T p 2 R s T s 2
and from this we get the thickness of the habitable shell
2 T s 2 R s ( T f r e e z i n g 2 1 − T b o i l i n g 2 1 ) = 0 . 5 × 5 3 4 4 2 × 0 . 7 9 × 6 9 5 5 0 0 × ( 2 7 3 . 1 5 2 1 − 3 7 3 . 1 5 2 1 ) = 4 8 8 0 8 1 0 9 km