Convex and concave lens and paraxial rays

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the behavior of paraxial rays when passing through convex and concave lenses. A convex lens causes paraxial rays to refract and converge at the focus on the far side, while a concave lens causes the rays to diverge, appearing to converge at the focus on the incident side when traced backward. The conversation emphasizes the distinction between reflection and refraction, highlighting that refraction is governed by Snell's Law, which dictates how light behaves at the boundary of different media.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Snell's Law ($n_i \sin(\theta_i)=n_o \sin(\theta_o)$)
  • Familiarity with the concepts of refraction and reflection
  • Basic knowledge of lens types: convex and concave
  • Awareness of paraxial ray approximation in optics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the geometric principles of lens design and their impact on light behavior
  • Explore the applications of Snell's Law in optical systems
  • Investigate the differences between real and virtual images formed by concave and convex lenses
  • Review optical diagrams and sketches to visualize ray behavior through lenses
USEFUL FOR

Students of optics, optical engineers, and educators seeking to deepen their understanding of lens behavior and light refraction principles.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
What effect would a convex (concave) lens have on paraxial rays?

For a convex lens, the rays would pass through and converge on the focus on the other side.

For a concave lens, the rays would reflect back to the focus on the same side.

Is this correct?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
What effect would a convex (concave) lens have on paraxial rays?

For a convex lens, the rays would pass through and converge on the focus on the other side.

I would agree.

For a concave lens, the rays would reflect back to the focus on the same side.

Is this correct?

It is not, though you might have the right idea. There would not theoretically be any reflection (though practically speaking, there's usually some reflection). We're still talking about refraction with these lenses.

Here's what would happen: the parallel rays would diverge on the far side such that, if you traced the diverging rays straight backwards through the concave lens, they would converge at the focus on the incident side.
 
Ackbach said:
I would agree.
It is not, though you might have the right idea. There would not theoretically be any reflection (though practically speaking, there's usually some reflection). We're still talking about refraction with these lenses.

Here's what would happen: the parallel rays would diverge on the far side such that, if you traced the diverging rays straight backwards through the concave lens, they would converge at the focus on the incident side.

Can you provide a sketch of what you mean then?
 
dwsmith said:
Can you provide a sketch of what you mean then?

Sure. This is the kind of thing I had in mind. Scroll down to Figure 16, which is about half-way down the page.
 
Ackbach said:
Sure. This is the kind of thing I had in mind. Scroll down to Figure 16, which is about half-way down the page.

So for the convex, the paraxial rays reflect through the other side inline with the focus on the back side then, correct?
 
dwsmith said:
So for the convex, the paraxial rays reflect through the other side inline with the focus on the back side then, correct?

I would say it like this: paraxial rays refract through a convex lens and converge at the focus on the far side.
 
Ackbach said:
I would say it like this: paraxial rays refract through a convex lens and converge at the focus on the far side.

I mean concave not convex there and those paraxial rays reflect through on the line from the focus on their incoming side not converging to the focus on the outgoing side, correct?
 
Last edited:
dwsmith said:
I mean concave not convex there and those paraxial rays reflect[/color]

In the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Reflection is when real, physical light rays bounce off something. Refraction is when real, physical light rays travel through a boundary, typically a change in the index of refraction, like the incoming or outgoing side of a lens.

When you shine light on a lens, there is hardly any reflection at all - almost all the light refracts.

You need to get this straight, because the laws governing reflection $[\theta_i=\theta_o]$ and those governing refraction $[n_i \sin(\theta_i)=n_o \sin(\theta_o)]$ are exceedingly different.

through on the line from the focus on their incoming side not converging to the focus on the outgoing side, correct?

If you use the word "refract" here instead of "reflect", then I would say you're correct. You might insert a comma after the words "incoming side".
 
Why do the rays refract in this manner for the convex and concave lens?
 
  • #10
Well, Snell's Law, which is $n_i \sin(\theta_i)=n_o \sin(\theta_o)$, is the solution to the least-time problem (Fermat's Principle). Fundamentally, that is what is going on. You can't go more fundamental than that, to my knowledge.

That is, Snell's Law governs refraction, period. Concave and convex lenses do what they do based on the geometry of their lens grind, in conjunction with Snell's Law.
 
  • #11
Found here a lot of talks around the concave and convex subject. I'be managed to do a lot of research about the meanings regarding concave lenses. The research was made using library references but also online references. You can read about my entire research about concave lenses here: Concave Lenses - optical use and definitions - ZOOM camp.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K