What Determines Axial Resolution in Spherical Lenses?

AI Thread Summary
Axial resolution in spherical lenses is influenced by factors such as the Huygens-Fresnel principle and the numerical aperture of the lens. The axial point spread function (PSF) is typically about three times larger than the lateral PSF for simple circular lenses, which explains why axial resolution is generally lower. Techniques like confocal microscopy can reduce the axial PSF, while others like Bessel beams can increase it. The asymmetry in resolution arises from the Debye approximation in the diffraction integral, which describes how the radial and axial components of the diffracted field behave differently. A deeper understanding of optics and mathematics can enhance comprehension of these concepts.
u0362565
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I was wondering what factors determine axial resolution in spherical lenses. I know that axial resolution in conventional light microscopy at least is about half as good lateral resolution. I've read about the huygens-fresnel principle of diffraction and how this can account for the size of the airy disk at the image plane-determined by the wavelength of light and the size of the aperture. However can you use this principle to explain why axial resolution is only half as good as lateral resolution? A formula I've seen for axial resolution
R = Lambda x refractive index of medium/numerical aperture^2

This is fine but it doesn't really explain to me why this is the case.

Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting approach- I've never thought of the problem in this way. First, it is true that the axial PSF is about 3 times the extent of the lateral PSF *for simple circular lenses*. What I mean by 'simple' is that the lens is not obscured and the lens does not have any phase singularities (like, for example, an axicon).

So one way to think of various imaging techniques (confocal, apodization, Bessel beams, etc) is that these primarily affect the axial PSF- either to shrink it (confocal) or extend it (Bessel beams). Also, when accounting for aberrations and/or polarization, the PSF can change radically.

Most generally, the asymmetry arises from the Debye approximation for the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral (which is less restrictive than the paraxial approximation). When this is written down, the radial component of the diffracted field goes as ∫J_0(αρ)d(cosθ) while the axial component goes as ∫exp(iβz)d(cosθ), where α and β are functions of the angle θ with respect to the optical axis- see Born and Wolf or Gu's "Advanced Optical Imaging Theory" for more detail.
 
hi andy,

yes i think i should get a decent book on optics. Unfortunately I'm not a physicist or mathematician and so much in science is explained by complicated formulas that don't really mean much to me. Hence i try to look at the qualitative approach.. I'm tempted to go back and get a good grounding in mathematics, might take a while though.

thanks,
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top