Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
3 deleted 10 characters in body
source | link

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationallyaxially symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationallyaxially symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationally symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationally symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

The paraxial imaging geometry of any axially symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of axially symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

2 added 106 characters in body
source | link

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationally symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationally symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian opticsHamiltonian optics or Fermat's principleFermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationally symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationally symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationally symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationally symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards

1
source | link

Proof of Validity of Thick Lens Model by Hamiltonian Formalism or Otherwise

The paraxial imaging geometry of any rotationally symmetric optical system can be described by three real parameters: the axial positions of the two principal planes and one focal length (i.e. $f_f=f_b$ in the diagrams below - or in the case where the input and output refractive indices are different, the focal lengths are different but their ratio is the ratio between the refractive indices). A ray entering one principal plane "teleports" to the other to emerge at the same transverse position in the other.

This is an amazingly simple (i.e. only three parameters) model for any combination of rotationally symmetric optical devices. Is there a simple proof that it always works, maybe grounded on general, Hamiltonian optics or Fermat's principle? Or, are there cases which it is not adequate for?

Principal Planes

Principal Planes Backwards