Why don't we find the angular magnification of objective lens in microscopes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shreya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Microscopes
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of angular magnification in microscopes, specifically questioning the role of the objective lens. The calculations presented for angular magnification involve the relationship between the distances and focal lengths of the lenses, with some confusion about the variable "D," which is clarified as the least distance for distinct vision. Participants debate whether it is appropriate to multiply linear and angular magnifications, emphasizing that angular magnification is defined by the angle subtended at the eye. The objective lens is noted to provide significant angular magnification by positioning the primary image closer to the eye, while the eyepiece contributes to linear magnification. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of magnification in optical systems and the need for careful interpretation of diagrams and calculations.
Shreya
Messages
187
Reaction score
64
Homework Statement
I was learning about microscopes & noticed that the lateral (linear) magnification of objective lens is multiplied with the angular magnification of eyepiece. My question is why is the angular magnification of objective not taken?
Relevant Equations
Angular magnification is the ratio of angle subtended by object at eye when viewed through lens to the angle subtended by object when it is placed at near point
## m_\theta = \frac {h}{u} * \frac {D} {h} ##
I tried deriving the angular magnification of eyepiece & this is what I got.
## m_\theta = \frac {h}{u} * \frac {D} {h} ##
Taking v as ##f_0 + L## from the diagram, I calculated u.
## m_\theta = - \frac{DL} {f_0 (f_0 +L)}##
1707017117331.png

Please verify my calculations and kindly point out my mistakes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, what is D??
 
hutchphd said:
Sorry, what is D??
I guess it is "Least distance for distinct vision" = 25 cm
 
Where exactly would it appear in your ray traces?
 
Shreya said:
the lateral (linear) magnification of objective lens is multiplied with the angular magnification of eyepiece.
I'm unconvinced by this description of the functions of the two lenses. Seems backwards to me.

There is a good diagram at https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshe...ge_Formation/2.09:_Microscopes_and_Telescopes
but I don't like the accompanying text, which uses the same division of labour as you quote.

What matters to the eye is
  • a large angle subtended at the eye …
  • … by an image it can focus on, typically at 25cm or more
According to the diagram, both lenses produce both types of magnification.
The objective lens achieves much angular magnification, largely by making the primary image much closer to the eye, without necessarily having much linear magnification. The eyepiece puts the secondary image at the required distance without changing the subtended angle much, and therefore supplies much linear magnification.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU, Shreya and hutchphd
Darshit Sharma said:
I know this is off topic but which software is this?
I just used Samsung Notes to draw it
 
  • Like
Likes Darshit Sharma
haruspex said:
The objective lens achieves much angular magnification, largely by making the primary image much closer to the eye, without necessarily having much linear magnification. The eyepiece puts the secondary image at the required distance without changing the subtended angle much, and therefore supplies much linear magnification.
Oh Okay. But, is it okay to multiply linear magnification with angular? What magnification does it give us then?
 
hutchphd said:
Where exactly would it appear in your ray traces?
Angular magnification is defined as ratio of the angle subtended at the eye when viewed through the device (microscope) to the angle subtended by the object when kept at least distance of distinct vision - D {without the device}
 
  • #10
Shreya said:
Oh Okay. But, is it okay to multiply linear magnification with angular?
I don’t think it is. First, what is meant by angular magnification of the objective? As I note, the angle we care about is the angle subtended at the eye. Using that in all cases, the overall angular magnification must be the product of the two angular magnifications. And the two types of magnification are only equal if the image and object are at the same distance.

In the image I linked to, if we assume the eye is very close to the eyepiece, the objective lens gives angular magnification ##\frac{h_i(d_o+d_i+d_o')}{hd_o'}## while the eyepiece gives no angular magnification (the centre of the eyepiece and the tips of the two images lie in a straight line).
Note that that angular magnification is not purely a property of the objective lens. It depends heavily on ##d_o'##.

But we should not trust that diagram excessively. The text notes that the objective could have linear magnification up to 100x. In that case, the primary image should be that many times further from the objective than the object is, so the diagram is very much not to scale. So both the linear magnification of the objective and the proximity of the primary image to the eyepiece make significant contributions to the effective angular magnification.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Shreya and Darshit Sharma
  • #11
Back
Top