| Thread Closed |
about resolving power? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Jul27-09, 10:37 PM | #1 |
|
|
about resolving power?
Hi there,
I am reading some material on resolving power of lens and diffraction effect. As I known, the first on who consider the relation of diffraction and resolution is E. Abbe in 1873, who gave the following relation [tex]\sin\alpha = \lambda / (2 n D)[/tex] where n is the index of refracion and D is aperature diameter. However, in the text of optics, I found something similar but different [tex]\sin\alpha = 1.22 \lambda / D[/tex] so what's the difference between these? How does the 1.22 come from? BTW, later in the text, I also read a criterion call Rayleigh's criterion which just approximate [tex]\sin\alpha[/tex] as [tex]\alpha[/tex] (I guess), so does Rayleigh's criterion only an approximation of Abbe's expression? |
| PhysOrg.com |
physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Promising doped zirconia >> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease >> Bringing life into focus |
| Jul28-09, 03:48 AM | #2 |
|
|
Maybe they use a standard value for n and don't bother further. n = 1.6... reasonable lens material.
|
| Jul28-09, 03:51 AM | #3 |
|
|
I forgot ... does the n stand for the refreactive index of the lens or the medium or both?
|
| Jul28-09, 08:32 AM | #4 |
|
Recognitions:
|
about resolving power?The first formula looks like the Abbe criterion, and is also related to the minimum resolving power of a lens. There are some slight nuances between the two (the Abbe criteria was derived based on Bragg scattering), but the bottom line to remember is that "resolving power" is not well-defined in general. The approximation sin(a) ~ a is not Rayleigh's criteria, it's the paraxial approximation, and is used in geometrical optics. Does that help? |
| Jul28-09, 08:38 AM | #5 |
|
Recognitions:
|
It's also worth knowing that the Airy criterion (the 1.22) is only an arbitrary limit picked by Airy - it's roughly the point at which you can distinguish two stars by eye. There is information in the image below this limit
The n is the general case but it is of the medium between the lens and the object which is almost always either space (n=1) or air (n=1 and a bit) so it gets forgotten about. |
| Jul28-09, 11:34 AM | #6 |
|
|
Thank you all of you. Now it is clear.
|
| Jul28-09, 02:41 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
| Jul28-09, 02:54 PM | #8 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Sorry should be the Raleigh criterion (another British astronomer around the same time) the distribution of the light is an Airy function (invented by Airy before Raleigh was born) but the limit is due to Raleigh
|
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: about resolving power?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Resolving power on an inclined slope | Introductory Physics Homework | 3 | ||
| Resolving Power | Advanced Physics Homework | 2 | ||
| HW help (Double Slit, Resolving power etc..) | Introductory Physics Homework | 9 | ||
| Resolving Power | General Physics | 2 | ||
| Resolving Power | Introductory Physics Homework | 1 | ||