What is the equality of first and second focal lengths in Sears' Optics?

AI Thread Summary
Sears' Optics claims that the first and second focal lengths are equal, but this assertion lacks proof, raising concerns among readers. The first focal length is defined as the distance from the first focal point to the first principal point, while the second focal length follows a similar definition. It is noted that these lengths are generally not equal unless the lens is symmetrical, which Sears does not clarify in his examples. A deeper understanding of the principle points is necessary to reconcile Sears' claims with established optical principles. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for clarity and proof regarding the equality of focal lengths in optical systems.
ttzhou
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



In Sears' Optics, chapter 4, Sears claims that the first and second focal lengths (distance from first and second focal points to the first and second principal points, respectively) are equal, and he seems to imply that this is true in general, without proof.

I am a mathematician at heart, and the lack of proof of this bothers me immensely. Would any PF'ers be able to shed some light on this matter? It would be greatly appreciated. I did a forum search and went through about 4-5 pages and found nothing similar.

Homework Equations



Basically, f = f' where f stands for the first focal length and f' stands for the second.

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried imagining this using Fermat's principle of reversibility, but it seems kind of sketchy...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are they calling the "first" and "second" focal lengths?

In general, the front and back focal lengths will be different.
The two are the same if the lens is symmetrical.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
 
What are they calling the "first" and "second" focal lengths?

In general, the front and back focal lengths will be different.
The two are the same if the lens is symmetrical.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
 
Hi Simon,

As mentioned in my post - the first focal length is defined as the distance from the first (or front) focal point to the first principal point, which is defined as the intersection of the first principle plane and the axis. The second focal length is defined analagously.

I've already read the Wiki article and I did not find it to be of use. My intuition tells me that in general they are not equal, but according to Sears, he constantly makes reference to them being equal, and nowhere has he stated that the lenses are symmetrical. In fact, he does an example in which the lens is asymmetrical, but STILL claims the focal lengths are equal.
 
OK - I was trying to guide you there , let's try another approach: reading FFL and BFL - under "general optical systems" in wikipedia, there is a detailed derivation showing that these two lengths are not, in general, the same.

Comparing wiki with Sears, however, FFL (eg) is defined from the first optical surface. FL1, by Sears, is defined from the first principle point ... which refines the search: to understand Sears, you need to understand how the principle point is found [pdf]. FL1=|F-P| and FL2=|F'-P'|. Wikipedia calls this "EFL" and, indeed, FL1=FL2.

From there is it a matter of geometry.
 
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