This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How does one get from those parameters to the simplification? Can someone check the work? lysdexia 22:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If luminance and luminosity are supposed to be synonyms, shouldn't those two articles be merged? -- Abdull 12:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi I wanted an article on the subject I have mentioned but I could not find it. Could you please find an article on the above—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.142.94.106 ( talk • contribs) 05:49, May 19, 2006.
Glennchan says: "please cite sources- the additional information is contradictory; read the luminosity and HSL wikipedia pages." OK, I'll try for some sources. But I don't see what the contradiction is that you see. Can you clarify? Dicklyon 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Glennchan 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we move this information into the HSL color space page, not this one. I think the only relevant info here would be that the "L" in HSL color space is called different things.
As far as the correct name / what L stands for... I do not know. Since in common usage various L words are used, it is useful to point that out. If there is some authority for naming conventions, then please add that information and cite that authority (i.e. like how SI handles standard units and nomenclature for science/physics).
In a slightly different vein, you can point out that the "L" in HSL has nothing to do with the color science definitions of luminance, lightness, etc. There's no connection with color science there. Glennchan 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clarify this more, but please check and see if I got it right. The proliferation of terms here is confusing and could maybe use more work. Dicklyon 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a textbook. I don't think sample physics problems should be included in this article. What do you all think? Stebbins 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The Main sequence and the Luminosity articles give contradictory information about luminosity being proportional to a power of stelar mass. The Main Sequence article mentions M^3.5 while the luminosity article mentions M^3.9. Could someone correct this? -Paul- ( talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the M^3.5 figure elsewhere, though it doesn't seem to be in the main sequence article any more. It may be outdated, but if so, it would be good to have the source for M^3.9. JW Bjerk ( talk) 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The units in the luminosity formula for stars are not specified, but appear to be in light years. However, the standard astronomical formulae use parsecs as the unit. For example, the absolute magnitude of a star is given as the brightness of a star at a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6158 light years). The constant -2.72 also needs some explanation; it appears to be the brightness of the sun at a distance of 1 light year but this is not explained. The article could be improved by adding units and supplying a clarifying explanation for this constant. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to dig up the examples from the extra solar planet catalog...
GabrielVelasquez (
talk) 04:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I found that using radius in kilometers worked, if anyone can confirm this perhaps these units should be stated. Firstmatekevin ( talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC) kevin.
Could someone please add a paragraph explaining the difference between luminosity and luminous flux -and why luminosity is not measured in lumens? Perhaps a link from the luminous flux page too? 71.129.86.9 ( talk) 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Luminosity is the amount of light radiated per second. Multiple sources can be used to verify this / support this change. What does everyone think? (Rest learned/ read about it in my astronomy class.
The section on uses in astronomy, at times used the word brightness as the thing that is measured, which is wrong. The magnitude is measured, brightness is a perception of this (i.e. if you are drunk, brightness will be affected, the magnitude however is an objective measure).
So the heading "Computing between brightness and luminosity" should be changed to "Computing between magnitude and luminosity".... however this exact wording is used for the title of a subsection, which is actually only about differences in absolute magnitudes. So I guess both titles should be changed? Tøpholm ( talk) 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the article begins wrongly by saying that Luminosity is another term for brightness. Luminosity is the term for total amount of light, i.e. in Watts (or perhaps the photometric equivalent).
So should the article be restructured to give first the simple definition "Luminosity is a measure of the total amount of light emitted (in all directions) by a source"; then the Astrophysics examples, and then finally the "common misuse" instances as synonyms for "luminance" and "luma" ?
At the moment, the article begins with a wrong sentence (comparing luminosity to brightness), and then spends the opening 2 sections explaining what luminosity isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 ( talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a variety of astronomy articles, Betelgeuse most recently, and noticed the two tags at the top of the article, one for added citations and the other for an expanded lead section. The formulas provided in this article figure prominently in the Betelgeuse article. So I'd like to contribute to this article if I can, especially since it's High Importance. The only contribution I can make, however, is that of a layman struggling to understand what for me is often a challenging subject.
I looked at all the other articles that might reference back to this article, Photometry, Luminance, Luma (video), HSL color space, Scattering theory and accelerator physics, but noticed that none of them use blue links to link back to this article. Consequently, the majority of readers who come to this article, I suspect, come via some star article, specifically the Details section of the starbox. For this reason, I think it makes sense to have the Astronomy section come first in the article, with other sections to follow
The sub-section on astronomy is very helpful in that it provides sophisticated formulas to convert from one luminosity distinction to another. Where the article is weak is that it's a little esoteric for the average reader. I will therefore be working on the article a little to make it more "user-friendly", expanding the lead and adding citations, but feel free to edit at will. I will be posting ideas for article improvement as sub-sections below: Thanks.-- Sadalsuud ( talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
In terms of structure, I think it's best to have the Astronomy section come first, for reasons mentioned above. Also article headings all start with "In", which strikes me as somewhat redundant. I think shorter phrases work better, especially if there exist articles written on the subject.-- Sadalsuud ( talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears we might be missing 2 sections:
Any thoughts?-- Sadalsuud ( talk)
I'm no expert, but luminosity appears to measure energy per unit time. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the lede state that the luminosity is the amount of power emitted by the body, rather than energy? William Jockusch ( talk) 01:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be about four or five completely different things. Isn't the standard practice to have four or five different articles with a disambiguation page? Lithopsian ( talk) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This article says: "The Sun has a total power output of 3.846×10^26 W or 1.00 solar luminosity,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity says: "One solar luminosity is equal to the current accepted luminosity of the Sun, which is 3.839×10^26 W," ... "3.939×10^26 W if the solar neutrino radiation is included as well as electromagnetic radiation"
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/ay145/units.html says: "1 Solar Luminosity = 3.826x10^26 W"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html says: "Luminosity = 3.846x10^26 W" and hence agrees with the article. But what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity then? God, maker of the world ( talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I am putting brightness back into the lead paragraph. It is helpful for non-technical readers to understand the relationship between them. There is a Wikipedia article brightness, but it is about perception, not the astronomical usage of the word. Brightness has a different meaning in astronomy.
As a reference for brightness and luminosity I am using
Jeanne Hopkins edited manuscripts for the Astrophysical Journal and compiled this glossary for authors to make her job easier. In disputes between authors about definitions, the astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar served as referee. At the time he was the Managing Editor of the journal, and he proofread this second edition when it was published. He won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This page opens up by saying that "In SI units luminosity is measured in joules per second or watts". While it is most often measured in these units, the technical SI unit for luminosity is the candela. Additionally, luminosity and therefore candelas are some of the few SI units that are not derivations of other units; the Joule itself is defined as kg·m2·s-2. Just a little concerned about article consistency.
Jacob S-589 ( talk) 21:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The article claimed: "A star also radiates neutrinos, which carry off some energy, about 2% in the case of our Sun, producing a stellar wind and contributing to the star's total luminosity.[5]". Citation 5 says nothing at all about stellar winds, and in fact only in supernovae are there thought to be enough neutrinos to drive a wind. Removed the mention of wind; the intent might have been to include kinetic energy of the wind in the Sun's output, but that needs more discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.1.200 ( talk) 13:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Most stars don't have a measured radius or a trigonometric distance, so their luminosity is determined by other means. One step involves spectroscopic parallax. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140809120004/http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach//education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_specparallax.html, archived 9 August 2014. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I am removing this section, long labeled as citation needed. I can't find references that discuss this. This is a special case, since we don't have diameters for most stars and find luminosity by other means. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Under "Magnitude formulae" I see two statements which seem to differ:
Is the symbol ambivalent? Kipala ( talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody know of a good picture for the intro to this article? Sam-2727 ( talk) 01:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
there is already an HR diagram in the article though Sam-2727 ( talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
ok I added that Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
There's this very good astrophysics textbook by two authors Carroll and Ostlie and I was wondering if someone would consider adding it as a source or resource to learn more about luminosity to this article. Carroll and Ostlie have a chapter on the different types of stars (main-sequence, red giant, white dwarf, etc.) and what sort of luminosity each one has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence in the article appears to incorrectly define luminosity as being “over time”. Perhaps what was meant was “per unit of time”. 2A02:14F:82:8375:D006:5F9E:B225:1A24 ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)