I Image construction with concave and convex mirrors

AI Thread Summary
Image construction with concave and convex mirrors requires extending rays beyond the mirror to accurately determine convergence points. Stopping rays at the mirror often leads to incorrect image formation due to the complexities of ray behavior on curved surfaces. The discussion highlights the importance of applying proper ray tracing techniques, including drawing normals at the point of incidence, to account for angles of incidence and reflection. This approach addresses issues like spherical aberration that arise from the limitations of paraxial approximations. Understanding these principles is essential for accurate geometrical constructions in optics.
eneacasucci
Messages
62
Reaction score
18
image construction with concave and convex mirrors

I don't know exactly how to explain it but what I have noticed is that when I use the rules for image construction with concave and convex lenses the image is wrong if I don't use the extension of the ray to the tangent to the mirror (purple line).

If I stop the ray at the mirror the rays do not all converge at one point. Does this mean that I actually have to construct the image by making the rays go beyond the mirror?
The correct construction is the green one but I thought that the rays stop at the mirror (like the red construction), but this way the result does not come.

I have applied the rules in both cases:
a) The rays passing through C are not deflected.
b) Rays passing through F are reflected parallel to the optical axis.
c) Rays parallel to the optical axis are reflected in the focus F.
1733524964648.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
Your stated rules are the rules for the paraxial approximation, where all angles are small and all optical components are approximately thin flat surfaces.

The image you've drawn, however, clearly doesn't fit that approximation. For such a strongly curved surface you'd need to do proper ray tracing - draw the normal where each ray strikes the surface and apply equality of angles of incidence and reflection. The resulting rays will still not all go through the same point, which is the origin of the phenomenon called spherical aberration.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes eneacasucci and Gleb1964
Thank you, i Think it is clearer now. I couldn't find on books proper information about those geometrical constructions.
So it should be something like this
1733677343189.png
 
Looks right, yes. Obviously the normals all point at ##C##.
 
  • Like
Likes eneacasucci
Ibix said:
Looks right, yes. Obviously the normals all point at ##C##.
oh yes right, I wasn't thinking about it but of course because as per definition: The radius of a circle is perpendicular to the tangent at every point on the circle
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top