How does the index of a medium affect the focal length of a lens?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on how the index of a medium affects the focal length of a lens. For a lens with a focal length of 100 cm, when light enters a medium with an index of 1.33, the new focal point is calculated to be 124.8 cm away from the lens. In a scenario where there is a 5 cm patch of medium with an index of 1.5 after the lens, the focal point shifts to 101.67 cm. Participants debate the relevance of optical path length versus diffraction effects in determining the focal distance. A geometric approach is suggested for clearer understanding, emphasizing the use of Snell's law for accurate calculations.
physicsphreak2
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose we have a lens of known focal length, f=100 cm.
(a) If light enters the lens from air, but after the lens enters a medium with index 1.33, how far from the lens will focus? (Assume the incident light is collimated.)
(b) What if there is instead air after the lens, except for a 5 cm patch of medium with index 1.5?

Homework Equations


1/f=(n-1)(1/R1-1/R2)

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't have the index of the lens, so maybe I don't need to use the lens-maker's equation?

So instead, I proceed like this: Let's say the light travels distance L in air, and x in the medium. Clearly L+x=f because you travel through the two mediums until you got to the focus. If L+x=f, but some of x is replaced by something of effective length x/n, then you have to travel L=f-(x/n) in the air still. So the total travel distance is L+x=(f-(x/n))+x= f+x(1-1/n).

For (a), then, we get that the light focuses to a point at 100+100(1-1/1.33)=124.8 cm

For (b), then, we get that the light focuses to a point at 100+5-(5/1.5)=101.67 cm.

This makes sense, because I would expect a lens to be less powerful in a higher index medium... but is this right?Also, I'm confused about whether I would DIVIDE by the index (since really we care about diffraction effects, and those are proportional to wavelength, which gets smaller in a medium) or MULTIPLY by the index (because that's what happens to the optical path length, although I don't see why we care about the optical path length for focusing, isn't that more for interference effects?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
physicsphreak2 said:

Homework Statement


Suppose we have a lens of known focal length, f=100 cm.
(a) If light enters the lens from air, but after the lens enters a medium with index 1.33, how far from the lens will focus? (Assume the incident light is collimated.)
(b) What if there is instead air after the lens, except for a 5 cm patch of medium with index 1.5?

Homework Equations


1/f=(n-1)(1/R1-1/R2)

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't have the index of the lens, so maybe I don't need to use the lens-maker's equation?

So instead, I proceed like this: Let's say the light travels distance L in air, and x in the medium. Clearly L+x=f because you travel through the two mediums until you got to the focus. If L+x=f, but some of x is replaced by something of effective length x/n, then you have to travel L=f-(x/n) in the air still. So the total travel distance is L+x=(f-(x/n))+x= f+x(1-1/n).

For (a), then, we get that the light focuses to a point at 100+100(1-1/1.33)=124.8 cm

For (b), then, we get that the light focuses to a point at 100+5-(5/1.5)=101.67 cm.

This makes sense, because I would expect a lens to be less powerful in a higher index medium... but is this right?Also, I'm confused about whether I would DIVIDE by the index (since really we care about diffraction effects, and those are proportional to wavelength, which gets smaller in a medium) or MULTIPLY by the index (because that's what happens to the optical path length, although I don't see why we care about the optical path length for focusing, isn't that more for interference effects?)

Welcome to Physics Forums. Diffraction and interference are irrelevant here.

For (a), I get something slightly different -- and simpler. I sort of follow your reasoning, but am not convinced it is valid.

Try a simple geometric approach. Light leaves the lens and, if there is just air, focuses to a point a distance f away. So consider the right triangle that is formed by:
  • the central axis, from the lens center to the focal point
  • a ray drawn from the top of the lens to the focal point
  • a line drawn from the lens center to the top of the lens
Now replace the air with the medium of index 1.33. If you like, imagine a very thin layer of air between the lens and the medium. So the ray emerging from the top of the lens, instead of making an angle θ with the horizontal, makes an angle ___(?) with the horizontal. Figure out that angle, then use geometry to figure out where it reaches the central axis.

And use the usual small-angle approximations.

Hope that helps.
 
Using Redbelly's suggestion you can choose your own refraction angle of the beam coming off at the top of the lens towards the focal point in air. Then using Snell's law figure out the perpendicular using f = 100 cm from this angle. Then again apply Snell's law with the beam now refracting out into the new medium.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top