A Reversed Spot Diagram: Image & Point Source Effects

AI Thread Summary
In optical systems, reversing the imaging and object planes can allow for the extrapolation of new spot sizes from known ones, provided the transition matrix of the system is available. If only forward direction data is known, modeling the system based on initial object and image information is necessary to predict outcomes when the direction is reversed. Magnification alone cannot be used to simply extrapolate spot sizes due to the complexities involved in optical behavior. The discussion highlights challenges with simulation tools like Zemax, which require specific configurations to analyze reversed systems. Ultimately, understanding the system's characteristics is crucial for accurate predictions in optical modeling.
Emperor42
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
If you have an optics system where you know the spot diagram of the image at on imaging on one plain and projecting onto another. Where you know the spot size for a point source at a given distance from the centre of the field.

Now if you reverse the system where the imaging plain now becomes the object plain and vice versa, can you extrapolate the new spot sizes from the old ones? Does it depend on the magnification?
Eksma-5Lens-63thick-config.jpg

forum lens.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you know the transition matrix for the optical system, then yes.
This is exactly the same as just finding the image knowing the object and the optical system.

If you do not, instead you only only know what happens when experiments are done in the forward direction (ie spot pattern A turns into image spot pattern A'), then you will need to model the optical system using knowledge of the initial object and the initial image.
From there you can deduce the expected result of reversing the direction given the model and the assumptions the model is derived from.
This sort of thing occupies much of science and it is a foundational postulate of scientifiic investigation that this approach is useful.
 
If I know the magnification of the system, can I just extrapolate the size of the spots if I reverse the image and optical plain, by just multiplying their size by the magnification factor? Because of the reversibility factor of optics.
 
In general - no. There can be anything in the box marked "system".
Compare the result with a simple lens with that for a telescope.
 
Hmm... its just difficult because the way Zemax works you have to have the image and object plain inverted for it to work for some reason. I can't reverse the black box lens so I'm left in a situation where I know roughly the quality of the lens, but I can't measure exactly how the spots will look on my CCD.
 
Oh you are asking how to do it in the simulator??
No idea. Like you said, you'd have to reverse the order of the componets in the black box unless you can get hold of the transfer matrix directly, then you just invert it.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top