Interpreting a system matrix (optics)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on interpreting the elements of an optical system matrix involving a convex lens, a concave lens, and a mirror. The system matrix is calculated as ##\mathcal{M} = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 8x \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix}##, leading to a magnification factor of ##1## and an inverted image. The user, Julien, seeks clarification on determining the distance ##x## for the real image to lie in the object plane, ultimately deriving the equation ##8x = \frac{1}{f_{\mathcal{M}}} = \frac{1}{2(L + d + x)}##, resulting in ##x = 112.5## cm.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of optical system matrices
  • Familiarity with thin lens equations and matrix multiplication
  • Knowledge of magnification concepts in optics
  • Basic algebra for solving quadratic equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of optical system matrices in complex lens systems
  • Learn about the implications of magnification in optical systems
  • Explore the principles of ray tracing in optics
  • Investigate the effects of different lens configurations on image formation
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in optics, physics educators, and anyone involved in optical design and analysis.

JulienB
Messages
408
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Hi everybody! While doing some homework for school, I realized that I still struggle to get what are the elements of an optical system matrix referring to. Here is the problem:

An optical tube with length ##L=50##cm has at one end a convex lens (##D=2##) and at the other end a concave lens (##D=-2##). A mirror is placed a distance ##x## from the concave lens (outside the tube) perpendicular to the optical axis. An object is placed at a distance ##d=100##cm from the convex lens (see attached picture).

For which distance ##x## can the real image of the object lay in the object plane? How big is the magnification? Is the image straight or inverted?

Homework Equations



I used the following convention for the matrices:

1. Translation matrix: ##\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ d & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
2. Thin lens matrix: ##\begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1/f \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
3. Flat mirror matrix: ##\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##

The Attempt at a Solution



So here is my attempt at solving the problem. First I determined the system matrix:

##\mathcal{M} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ d & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1/f_1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ L & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1/f_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ x & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ x & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1/f_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ L & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1/f_1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ d & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
##= \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 8x \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix}##

(I hope there is no mistake in the matrix. I've checked it many times already so it should be fine. The only doubts I have would concern the signs in the matrices when the ray comes back towards the object plane after hitting the mirror.)

Then I tried simply multiplying the matrix with an arbitrary height ##h## and angle ##phi_0## and got:

##\begin{bmatrix} \phi_f \\ h_f \end{bmatrix} = \mathcal{M} \begin{bmatrix} \phi_0 \\ h \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -\phi_0 + 8xh \\ -h \end{bmatrix}##

I can see that the resulting height is independent of the starting angle of the ray and moreover it is equal to ##-h##. Thus my interpretation is that the magnification factor is ##1## and that the image is inverted (because of the negative sign). Is that correct?

Then I have trouble interpreting the question about ##x##. Any idea I have always ends up into having ##x=0## which seems unlikely. Did I make a mistake calculating the system matrix or am I not seeing something? As I said in the introduction I am unsure on how to interprete the matrix component ##M_{12} = 8x##. Is it the focal length of the whole system? Maybe it should be equal to something but I can't see what right now. The inverse of the total length times 2?Thank you very much in advance for your suggestions.Julien.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0969.jpg
    IMG_0969.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 440
Physics news on Phys.org
What about that:

##8x = \frac{1}{f_{\mathcal{M}}} = \frac{1}{2(L + d + x)}##
##\equiv x^2 + x(L+d) - \frac{1}{4} = 0##
##\implies x= \frac{(L+d)^2}{2} = \frac{9}{8} = 112.5##cm

Does that make sense?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K