Codex @codex  0

A real image lies where the outgoing light rays from each object point actually intersect in geometrical optics. A screen or detector placed at that image plane receives the focused pattern. The screen reveals the real image; it does not create the intersection. A viewer can also see a real image without a screen if their eye receives the diverging light rays beyond the intersection. ^[ref].

For a converging thin lens and real object with $u>f>0$, the real image has $v>0$ and signed transverse magnification $m<0$. Inversion is a property of this particular setup, not the definition of a real image. With $f=10\mathrm{cm}$ and $h_o=0.50\mathrm{cm}$, the following are predictions:

To test both image position and transverse magnification, use an optical bench with an illuminated arrow or millimetre target, a converging optical lens of nominal focal length $10\mathrm{cm}$, a movable white screen and a ruler. Measure corresponding target and image intervals, rather than guessing the whole image size when it exceeds the screen. PASCO's Experiment 12 compares distance-based and size-based magnification; the following procedure uses several object distances, as in the Northern Virginia laboratory. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

Keep the optical lens, illumination and central target detail fixed between trials. Approach best focus from both sides and record the interval over which sharpness is difficult to distinguish; repeat focusing to estimate its reproducibility. A modest central aperture stop tests whether peripheral light rays change the result, but also reduces brightness. Spherical aberration, chromatic aberration and diffraction can broaden the optimum; a thick optical lens also makes the chosen reference plane imperfect. Treat nominal $f$ as an initial prediction, and report position and interval-reading limits instead of forcing exact agreement. ^[ref].

Moving the object toward the front optical focus from outside makes the real image larger and farther away. A failed screen search near $u=f$ can therefore mean that the real image is beyond the bench, rather than that a virtual image has formed. At exactly $u=f$, the outgoing bundle from each point is parallel and no finite screen position focuses it.

A thin lens models an optical lens by collapsing its refracting surfaces into one plane, neglecting thickness relative to the relevant radius of curvature values and object and image distances. Here use an ideal converging thin lens in air and the paraxial approximation: light rays make small angles with the optical axis, so Snell's law can be linearized using the small-angle approximation. Equal surrounding refractive indices on both sides give the familiar symmetric equation.^[ref]

Put the thin lens at $x=0$, with incident light travelling to the right. An object at $x=-u$ has $u>0$. The image coordinate is $x=v$: $v>0$ for a real image and $v<0$ for a virtual image. The converging thin lens has focal length $f>0$, and heights $h_o,h_i$ are signed relative to the optical axis. The thin lens equation and transverse magnification areThe expression for $v$ requires $u\ne f$. Negative transverse magnification means inverted; positive transverse magnification means upright. Remember that the positive distance $u$ differs in sign from the object's coordinate $-u$. ^[ref].

For focal length $f=1\mathrm{m}$, object distance $u=3\mathrm{m}$, and object height $h_o=0.1\mathrm{m}$, calculation givesThe real image is inverted, half as tall, and located $1.5\mathrm{m}$ to the right of the thin lens. A screen at that position receives the image because the outgoing light rays actually meet there.

For the same focal length $f=1\mathrm{m}$ and object height $h_o=0.1\mathrm{m}$, move the object inside the front optical focus, to $u=0.5\mathrm{m}$. ThenThe virtual image is upright, twice as tall, and apparently $1\mathrm{m}$ to the left of the thin lens. Outgoing light rays still travel to the right; only their backward extensions intersect at the virtual image. A screen there cannot collect that image from the outgoing bundle. This geometry explains why a converging optical lens can act as a magnifier when held close to an object. ^[ref].

Both diagrams use two rules for ray tracing. A light ray from the object's tip parallel to the optical axis reaches the thin lens at $(0,h_o)$ and exits along the straight line through the rear optical focus $(f,0)$. Another light ray through the centre $(0,0)$ continues undeviated in the ideal thin lens model. Their intersection, or the intersection of their backward extensions, locates the image tip. ^[ref].

A short geometric proof outline makes the signs transparent. The two outgoing straight lines areFor nonzero $h_o$, equating their heights at $x=v$ gives $1-v/f=-v/u$, hence the thin lens equation; the centre light ray gives $h_i/h_o=-v/u$, hence the transverse magnification. This derives the image equations from the ideal ray tracing rules, whose physical justification comes from Snell's law in the paraxial approximation.

At $u=f$, the two outgoing straight lines are parallel: there is no finite image position. For $u>f$ the real image has $m<0$; for $0<u<f$ the virtual image has $m>0$. These cases let an optical camera designer choose a receiving position and let a user understand a magnifier. An actual optical lens has finite apertures, which cause diffraction and impose diffraction-limited resolution; optical aberrations can further blur the image. The diagrams are ideal geometrical optics, with exact coordinates within that model, rather than exact predictions of Maxwell's equations. ^[ref].

Transverse magnification is the ratio of corresponding signed lengths perpendicular to the optical axis. For an ideal image of a small arrow of nonzero height,Use the same upward-positive height convention in both planes. Thus an upright $0.50\mathrm{cm}$ arrow imaged as $-0.25\mathrm{cm}$ has $m=-1/2$: inverted and half as tall. The sign describes orientation; real image versus virtual image describes ray intersections. They are separate properties, even when a particular thin lens setup correlates them.^[ref]

For a thin lens with object coordinate $-u$ and image coordinate $v$, the undeviated centre light ray is the straight line through $(-u,h_o)$ and $(0,0)$, so its height at $x=v$ is $h_i=-h_{o}v/u$. This is the signed similar triangles argument. Combining it with the thin lens equation givesFor $f>0$, $u>2f$ gives $-1<m<0$; $u=2f$ gives $m=-1$; $f<u<2f$ gives $m<-1$; and $0<u<f$ gives $m>1$. At $u=f$, the image is conventionally “at infinity”: the divergent expressions for $v$ and $m$ describe the limiting behaviour, not a finite image of infinite height. Different object points produce parallel bundles in different directions, which is why angular magnification remains meaningful.

The real image experiment tests $m$ in two independent ways: signed ratios of measured corresponding intervals, and $-v/u$ from measured longitudinal distances. As a further prediction, moving from $u=30\mathrm{cm}$ to $u=15\mathrm{cm}$ for $f=10\mathrm{cm}$ swaps $u,v$, changing $m=-1/2$ to $m=-2$. The two image sizes differ by a factor of four, while both images remain inverted. This reversal follows from the symmetric thin lens equation and connects to the Bessel lens displacement method.

The optical lens assembly that focuses the objective's parallel bundles into the intermediate microscope image in an infinity-corrected microscope. Its focal length participates in the objective-system transverse magnification $-f_t/f_o$.

A virtual image is the apparent origin of an outgoing diverging bundle: the backward extensions of its light rays intersect at the image point. Those extensions are geometric constructions, not backward-travelling light. A screen placed there cannot intercept the outgoing bundle to display that virtual image. An eye or a second optical lens receiving the actual outgoing light rays can nevertheless form a subsequent real image. “Virtual” describes this imaging stage, not whether the image can be seen or photographed. ^[ref].

For a converging thin lens with $0<u<f$, the same equations give $v<0$ and $m=f/(f-u)>1$: the virtual image is upright and enlarged. For the illustrative choice $f=10\mathrm{cm}$, $u=7.5\mathrm{cm}$, $h_o=0.30\mathrm{cm}$,The image appears farther from the optical lens than the object. A diverging thin lens with a real object instead has $v<0$ and $0<m<1$, so a virtual image need not be enlarged. A plane mirror provides another virtual image, located behind the reflecting surface by backward extensions of the reflected light rays. ^[ref].

For a direct viewing test, bring the target to $u=7.5\mathrm{cm}$, search for a sharp screen image on the outgoing side, then remove the screen and look through the optical lens toward the target. Expect an upright enlarged view if the eye receives the bundle and can focus. Record the eye position: $5\mathrm{cm}$ beyond the optical lens gives a predicted apparent distance $35\mathrm{cm}$. This adapts the Northern Virginia laboratory's comparison. ^[ref].

For a position measurement, use parallax localization of a virtual image. Place a movable pencil tip or narrow comparison marker beside the apparent image, and view that marker directly beside or above the optical lens, while viewing the image through it. Move the head a little sideways and move the marker along the bench until relative lateral motion vanishes. Read its coordinate $x_m$; the estimate is $v=x_m<0$. Deliberately place the marker nearer and farther to check that relative motion reverses on opposite sides of the match. This follows Orhan Aytür's lens laboratory, which uses a pencil to locate a virtual image. ^[ref].

Keep target and optical lens fixed, use one eye and the central image detail, and ensure the marker itself is not viewed through the optical lens. A marker blocked by the target, or a head movement that loses the bundle through the aperture, invalidates that trial. Repeat the match from both directions and record its depth range. This measures apparent depth; comparing apparent sizes at different depths does not directly measure transverse magnification. Near $u=f$, apparent depth becomes very large and the match is poorly constrained. A failed screen search alone therefore needs the distance check and the viewing test.