What Does the Negative Sign Indicate in the Mo Formula on HyperPhysics?

AI Thread Summary
The negative sign in the Mo formula on HyperPhysics indicates a sign convention related to the direction of the object and image in optics. It suggests that the object and image are oriented oppositely along the axis, which is a common practice in optics to denote real versus virtual images. A negative magnification does not imply a diminished image; rather, it reflects the orientation of the image. This sign convention helps clarify the relationship between object distance and image distance in optical systems. Understanding this concept is crucial for accurately interpreting magnification in optics.
Audaciity
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


At this site http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/micros.html , what does the negative sign indicate in the Mo formula?


Homework Equations


On website


The Attempt at a Solution


My guess is that either L or Fo are negative, but a negative magnification makes no sense, so basically it is a substitute for a modulus. Note: negative magnification could not possibly mean the image is diminished, because a diminished image simply has a magnification of less than 1 but greater than 0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It may be because of the sign convention. Here the object and image are in the opposite direction of the axis.
 
I don't believe either measurement qualifies as virtual
 

Thread 'Struggling to understand the concept of this question (ice cube in water optics question)'

TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
View full post »
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'

Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'

Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
View full post »

Similar threads

What is the Cartesian sign convention for microscope and telescope distances?
Replies
1
Views
2K
How does the sign convention work in ray optics?
Replies
6
Views
4K
How Does Lens Focal Length Affect Microscope Magnification and Field Diameter?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Microscope magnification question
Replies
1
Views
7K
How Far Should the Object Be Placed in a Microscope Setup for 75x Magnification?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Compound Microscope: Solving for Objective Focal Length
Replies
1
Views
4K
Understanding the Negative Sign in Microscope Mo Equation | HyperPhysics
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Breakdown of Planck's Law under certain Conditions
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fundamentals of the PN Junction
Replies
12
Views
2K
Strange Spam Email (The Limitation of the Photon Hypothesis)
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top