- #1
Niles
- 1,866
- 0
Hi
The thin lens equation we know is given by
[tex]
\frac{1}{S_O} + \frac{1}{S_I} = (n-1)(\frac{1}{R_1}-\frac{1}{R_2})
[/tex]
assuming light is incident from air. The "usual" way to derive the thin lens formula (aka the Gaussian Lens Formula) is to say that when looking at the system when either the image of object is at infinity, then we introduce the focal length by
[tex]
\frac{1}{f} = (n-1)(\frac{1}{R_1}-\frac{1}{R_2})
[/tex]
From this it is usually stated that then 1/f = 1/SO + 1/SI. This I don't agree with, since the thin lens equation at the top is general, however the second equation stated is when either the object or image is at infinity. From this one can't state 1/f = 1/SO + 1/SI, as done in e.g. Hecht.
What is the correct argument?Niles.
The thin lens equation we know is given by
[tex]
\frac{1}{S_O} + \frac{1}{S_I} = (n-1)(\frac{1}{R_1}-\frac{1}{R_2})
[/tex]
assuming light is incident from air. The "usual" way to derive the thin lens formula (aka the Gaussian Lens Formula) is to say that when looking at the system when either the image of object is at infinity, then we introduce the focal length by
[tex]
\frac{1}{f} = (n-1)(\frac{1}{R_1}-\frac{1}{R_2})
[/tex]
From this it is usually stated that then 1/f = 1/SO + 1/SI. This I don't agree with, since the thin lens equation at the top is general, however the second equation stated is when either the object or image is at infinity. From this one can't state 1/f = 1/SO + 1/SI, as done in e.g. Hecht.
What is the correct argument?Niles.