Codex @codex  0

Angular magnification is the ratio of the signed viewing angle with an optical instrument to the signed viewing angle in a stated reference arrangement. Measure both as apparent directions from the eye, positive toward the same side of the optical axis; then an inverted view has negative $M_{\theta }$. If only positive angular sizes are compared, the result is $|M_{\theta }|$ and carries no orientation information. ^[ref].

For the upright virtual image of a converging thin lens, let the eye be at $x=e\ge 0$ and take the unaided reference to be the same small object at a distance $D$ from the eye. Within the small-angle approximation,Specify $D$: keeping the object in its original position means $D=e+u$, whereas the customary magnifier rating uses a near-point reference, often $D=25\mathrm{cm}$. A reference distance is a convention, not a claim that every eye has that near point. ^[ref].

For the virtual image diagram, $m=4$, $v=-30\mathrm{cm}$ and $e=5\mathrm{cm}$. With $D=25\mathrm{cm}$, $M_{\theta }\simeq 20/7$, whereas keeping the object at $D=e+u=12.5\mathrm{cm}$ gives $M_{\theta }\simeq 10/7$. Thus neither viewing comparison gives the transverse magnification four. A person may also be unable to focus on the unaided object at the shorter reference distance.

At $u=f$, each outgoing bundle is parallel with slope $-h_o/f$; its apparent viewing direction has angle ${\theta }_i\simeq h_o/f$. Consequently $M_{\theta }\simeq D/f$ remains finite even though $m$ is undefined at a finite image plane. Equivalently, in the limit $u\to f^{-}$, the factors $m$ and $e-v$ both grow without bound but their ratio tends to $1/f$. For $f=10\mathrm{cm}$ and $D=25\mathrm{cm}$, the relaxed-view prediction is $M_{\theta }\simeq 2.5$. ^[ref].

A submerged object looks shallower because its emerging light rays bend away from the surface normal vector. Their backward extensions give an approximate virtual image nearer the surface. For an object at perpendicular depth $d$ in a medium of refractive index $n_{\mathrm{obj}}$, viewed through a flat boundary from a medium of refractive index $n_{\mathrm{obs}}$, the near-normal paraxial approximation gives $d_{\mathrm{par}}=(n_{\mathrm{obs}}/n_{\mathrm{obj}})d$. Thus the model water depth $12\mathrm{cm}$ appears approximately $9\mathrm{cm}$ from air. This is a bundle-of-light rays statement, not a deflection of the axial light ray.^[ref]

For general transmitted light rays, specify what “depth” means. Put the object at $(0,-d)$ below a horizontal boundary $z=0$. A light ray reaches the boundary at $(x,0)$, with object-side angle ${\theta }_{\mathrm{obj}}$ and observer-side angle ${\theta }_{\mathrm{obs}}$, both measured from the upward normal vector. For $x>0$, its backward extension meets the object's normal line $x=0$ at $z=-d_{\mathrm{axis}}$, whereThis axis-intercept depth is exact for that one transmitted light ray in the stated model. It tends to $d_{\mathrm{par}}$ as the angles tend to zero; at exactly zero the quotient is interpreted as a limit. These elementary tangent, sine and cosine relations show precisely where the small-angle approximation enters.

The original calculations below use $d=12\mathrm{cm}$, $n_{\mathrm{obj}}=4/3$ and $n_{\mathrm{obs}}=1$:

At appreciable obliquity these depths differ, so the full outgoing bundle has no single exact virtual image on the object's normal line. An oblique eye samples a narrow bundle; its local apparent position also depends on that bundle and cannot be inferred by declaring $d_{\mathrm{axis}}$ to be a universal image depth. A plane refracting boundary gives approximate image formation near normal incidence, with departures at larger angles. The construction assumes a flat surface, uniform transparent media with isotropy, and a propagating transmitted light ray; it does not extend to total internal reflection.

Image formation assigns each object point a corresponding image point: outgoing light rays from that object point either converge there, giving a real image, or diverge as though they originated there, giving a virtual image. The requirement applies separately to each point. Bringing unrelated light rays together makes a bright patch, but does not preserve the object's pattern. This point-by-point correspondence explains how an optical camera records a scene. ^[ref].

Use the same convention as thin lens: place the optical lens at $x=0$, with incident light travelling to the right and a real object at $x=-u$, $u>0$. Write the image coordinate as $x=v$, so $v>0$ for a real image and $v<0$ for a virtual image. Heights $h_o,h_i$ are positive above the optical axis and negative below it. In air, within the paraxial approximation, a thin lens obeysHere $f$ is the signed focal length, positive for a converging optical lens and negative for a diverging optical lens; the expression for $v$ assumes $u\ne f$. Object distance $u$ is positive even though the object's coordinate is negative. These coordinate rules describe transmission through the optical lens; a mirror reverses the outgoing direction, so do not identify its image distance with this same rightward coordinate. ^[ref].

The beauty of geometrical optics is that two convenient light rays can locate a point, while a whole admitted bundle forms its image. For a converging thin lens, an incident light ray parallel to the optical axis exits through the rear optical focus; a light ray through the centre continues undeviated. Real optical lens elements do not focus every admitted light ray exactly: optical aberrations and diffraction limit the point correspondence. The diagrams below are original ideal-model constructions, not measured data. ^[ref].

Magnification compares an image's scale with a specified reference. Transverse magnification compares signed lengths in object and image planes; angular magnification compares viewing angles at an observer. Both are dimensionless quantities, but they answer different questions. A projected real image twice as tall has $|m|=2$; an optical telescope's advertised viewing enlargement normally concerns angular magnification. ^[ref].

Always specify the sign and the reference arrangement. For signed transverse magnification, $m<0$ means inverted and $m>0$ means upright; $|m|>1$ means enlarged and $0<|m|<1$ means reduced. A larger virtual image can subtend a modest viewing angle if it is farther away. At $u=f$, an ideal converging thin lens has no finite image height and hence no finite transverse magnification, while angular magnification can remain finite. Enlargement also does not guarantee extra detail: diffraction-limited resolution and optical aberrations limit the information available to enlarge. ^[ref].

The viewing optical lens assembly that acts as a magnifier of the intermediate microscope image. With that image at its front focal plane, the outgoing light rays from each point are parallel. In the small-angle approximation, the viewed angle is $h_i/f_e$, versus $h_i/D$ for the same image-sized object at reference distance $D$, giving $M_e=D/f_e$.^[ref]

A finite-distance virtual image requires a different eyepiece conjugate. In the ideal thin lens model, with the eye close to the eyepiece and the virtual image at distance $D$, the angular magnification becomes $1+D/f_e$. State the viewing condition before multiplying by the objective's transverse magnification; the relaxed-eye example above uses $D/f_e$.

Parallax localization of a virtual image matches the apparent depth of a virtual image to a directly viewed physical marker. A sideways change of viewpoint changes their relative apparent positions if their depths differ. Adjust the marker until that relative motion vanishes, and use its coordinate to estimate image position. The marker must be viewed directly; viewing it through the same optical lens compares two images rather than an image and a known physical depth. ^[ref].

For two nearly aligned points at distances $L_i,L_m$ from an eye displaced sideways by $\delta$, the small-angle approximation gives a change of relative viewing angle proportional to $\delta (1/L_i-1/L_m)$. It vanishes when $L_i=L_m$, and changes sign across that match. When both distances are large, the difference is small, explaining the poor depth precision near the thin lens condition $u=f$.

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.

At a smooth mirror with unit normal vector $n$, an incoming unit direction $i$ has outgoing direction $i-2(i\cdot n)n$. Thus the incident and reflected rays make equal angles with the normal.

More precisely, specular reflection redirects each incident light ray into the direction prescribed by the law of reflection, rather than spreading it over many outgoing directions. The incident light ray, reflected light ray, and local normal vector lie in one plane. The surface must be sufficiently smooth on the scale of the wavelength for this model to describe its reflected beam; a visibly flat surface can still scatter light if its microscopic roughness is appreciable. ^[ref].

The displayed formula uses unit vectors $\mathbf{i},\mathbf{n},\mathbf{r}$ and the dot product. It preserves the component parallel to the mirror and reverses the normal component. For a mirror along $y=0$, take $\mathbf{n}=(0,1)$ and $\mathbf{i}=(3/5,-4/5)$. Then $\mathbf{i}\cdot \mathbf{n}=-4/5$ and $\mathbf{r}=(3/5,4/5)$: both directions have vector norm one, and both make an angle $\arccos (4/5)\approx 36.87^{\circ }$ with the relevant normal direction. Replacing $\mathbf{n}$ by $-\mathbf{n}$ leaves the result unchanged.

This same local rule explains a flat mirror's virtual image. For a source at $(0,a)$ above $y=0$, backward extensions of reflected light rays intersect at $(0,-a)$. The light remains above the mirror; its apparent origin lies below it. A curved mirror changes its normal vector from point to point and can instead make reflected light rays converge. The geometry of image formation therefore starts with one simple direction rule. ^[ref].

// Target: optics.bigb

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.

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.