What is the correct sign convention for the lens and mirror formula?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rishch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Lens Mirror
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the correct sign convention for the lens and mirror formula, comparing two different approaches found in textbooks. Participants explore the implications of these conventions on the application of the formulas in optics, particularly in relation to object and image distances.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a discrepancy between two textbooks regarding the lens formula, highlighting that one uses a "New Cartesian" sign convention while the other does not.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the differences in formulas are indeed due to varying sign conventions and suggests using sketches as a reality check.
  • A participant mentions that negative distances can lead to negative scale factors in similar triangles, which complicates the understanding of geometric proofs.
  • One participant finds the Cartesian plane sign convention intuitive, suggesting that it simplifies remembering the rules, but acknowledges the challenge of dealing with negative scale factors during proofs.
  • A participant claims to have developed an alternative solution to the problem after further consideration, although the details of this solution are not provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the differences arise from varying sign conventions, but no consensus is reached on which convention is preferable or how to handle negative distances in geometric proofs.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the application of negative distances in geometry and the implications for similarity in triangles, indicating a need for clarity on these concepts.

rishch
Messages
106
Reaction score
1
So we are learning the lens formula and I have two textbooks, my school textbook and another one that is much more detailed. My school textbook gives the lens formula as:-

1/f=1/v-1/u

while the other one gives

1/f=1/v+1/u (v is image distance and u is object distance)

There both different! I looked them some more and the problem is that my school textbook follows some "New Cartesian" sign convention. Imagine the optical center as the origin and the principal axis as the x-axis and the vertical line down the mirror as the y axis. So left is negative, right is positive, up is positive and down is negative. Just like a graph. The other one does the same except that even if the object is on the left they take it as positive.

I went to Khan Academy and he had a proof and he came up with the second one, different from the one in my school textbook. I tried doing the proofs on my own but I don't know how to include negative distances in geometry. Do you take the lengths as negative? Then you can't use similarity of triangles because some sides have negative length and others, positive. How do you work with negative distances? Getting really confused :/
 
Science news on Phys.org
The differences are due to different sign conventions all right.
I've never been able to keep them straight and I always rely on a quick sketch of the situation as a reality check.

Note: Triangles are similar if all the angles are the same ... with negative distances, you get a negative scale factor.
 
The differences are due to different sign conventions all right.
I've never been able to keep them straight and I always rely on a quick sketch of the situation as a reality check.

Note: Triangles are similar if all the angles are the same ... with negative distances, you get a negative scale factor.
 
Actually I find the cartesian plane sign convention really good as it's easy to remember if you just thing of it like a graph or number line. Left is negative and right is positive. Yes but during proofs one pair of corresponding sides may have a negative scale factor and one may have a positive scale factor. I managed to come up with an alternative neat solution to the problem after a bit of thinking though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K