Solving the Homework Equations: What Am I Doing Wrong?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the equation 1/s + n/s' = 1/f in optics, where participants analyze the relationship between distances and focal lengths. The original poster attempts to derive a solution but finds a discrepancy between their result, which suggests a spherical surface, and the book's answer indicating an elliptical surface. Other contributors clarify that the optical path length must be equal for all rays, leading to the conclusion that the surface should indeed be elliptical. They recommend starting from first principles to better understand the problem and verify the book's solution. Ultimately, the poster confirms that following this approach aligns their findings with the book's answer.
aa_o
Messages
24
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


upload_2018-10-15_17-5-19.png
[/B]

Homework Equations


1/s+n/s′=1/f
where
s is distance from source to diffracting surface,
s' is distance from diffracting surface to focus,
f is the focal length,
n is the refractive index.

The Attempt at a Solution


Since we have parallel beams, we have s = infinity so the equation reduces to
n/s' = 1/F' <=> s' = n*F'
If our coordinate system is placed so that we have origo at F', we get:
s' = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)
inserting and solving for y we get:
sqrt(x^2 + y^2) = n*F'
x^2 + y^2 = (n*F')^2
y = +/- sqrt( (n*F')^2 - x^2 )
But the solution in the book says:
upload_2018-10-15_17-22-31.png

What am i doing wrong?

Also, i notice that my solution is a spherical surface with a radius n*F', but the books solution is ellipsical. From optics we know that it should be a spherical surface, so is the book simply wrong?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-15_17-5-19.png
    upload_2018-10-15_17-5-19.png
    9.2 KB · Views: 585
  • upload_2018-10-15_17-22-31.png
    upload_2018-10-15_17-22-31.png
    4.1 KB · Views: 292
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know the answer, but from the diagram it seems that when y = 0, x = F', and that is not a solution to your equation or the book's.
 
mjc123 said:
I don't know the answer, but from the diagram it seems that when y = 0, x = F', and that is not a solution to your equation or the book's.
I don't think that's right. In the problem the origin is not specified. In the books' solution we have a point at x=0, y=0, so the origin must be on the surface of the lens itself.
 
aa_o said:
1/s+n/s′=1/f
Isn't that an approximation?
How about you start from first principles and say that the optical path length is the same for all rays?
 
  • Like
Likes aa_o and Charles Link
The known result in Optics is that the surface is an ellipse and not spherical for the optical path length to be precisely the same for all rays. And I agree with the book's answer. ##\\ ## There is a simple trick to computing the result for this if you begin with the result that the solution must be an ellipse: The ray that comes in at the very top of the ellipse must also pass through the far focal point of the ellipse, which is located at (c,0) in an x-y coordinate system with (0,0) at the center of the ellipse. By Snell's law ## n \sin{\theta}=1 \sin{90^{\circ}}=1 ##. Using ## \tan{\theta}=\frac{c}{b} ##, where the ellipse is ## \frac{(x-a)^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}=1 ##, with ## a^2-b^2=c^2 ##, I was able to verify the book's answer within about 5 minutes. ## \\ ## Setting the optical path length, (where the length in the material gets multiplied by ## n ##), equal for all paths to the point ## (F',0) ## would take a little bit of work, but that is what the problem is asking for.
 
Last edited:
I figured that deriving from first principles would give me the best understanding of the concept.
I did this and came up with the same answer as the book. Thanks for the help guys!
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top