4
$\begingroup$

The object distance ($u$), image distance ($v$) and the focal length of a spherical mirror ($f$) are related by the well-known formula (using the appropriate sign convention):

$$ \frac{1}{u} + \frac{1}{v} = \frac{1}{f} $$

The location of the image happens to coincide exactly with the image of the point object $O$ when reflected about the circle centered at the focus $F$. (Note: Throughout this explanation, I'm assuming that $O$ is a point object on the $x$-axis.)

This relation can actually be derived quite easily from the defining equation of circle inversion: $OP \cdot OP' = r^2$ (where $O$ is the centre of the circle, $P$ is the original point, $P'$ is the reflected point and $r$ is the radius of the circle).

A screenshot from an applet I made in GeoGebra. The location of the image <span class=$I$ coincides exactly with the reflected image of the object O about the circle centered at F.">

In the case of spherical mirrors, the original point is $O$, the image is $I$, the center of the circle is $F$, and the radius is $f$. Further, $OF = f - u$, $IF = f - v$. Plugging these values into the equation gives

$$(f - u)\cdot (f - v) = f^2$$ $$\implies f\cdot (v + u) = u\cdot v$$ $$\implies \frac{1}{u} + \frac{1}{v} = \frac{1}{f} $$

Is it merely a coincidence that reflection in spherical mirrors can be described by circular inversion about an imaginary circle about the focus, or is there a deeper reason behind this?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think this question might be better received on Math.SE, since it's basically a question on geometry. Do read this Meta thread about cross-posting though if you decide to do anything about this. $\endgroup$
    – Ruslan
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the suggestion! Since I've already set a bounty on this question, I think I'll wait for a few more days before asking on Math.SE. $\endgroup$
    – Art
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Is it merely a coincidence or a deeper reason"?. I don't understand your question. It's one way of solving the problem. Light ray propagation has the same set of rules (I guess) when interacting with spherical surfaces. It's just straight infinite lines and reflections tied to the angle between those lines and a radius of the sphere. I feel the question has a bit of a feeling of demonstrating the pythagoras theorem through different means. It's just another way of solving the problem. Don't forget that ray tracing is a very very simple optical model, arising naturally from geometry. $\endgroup$ Commented May 22, 2020 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about the confusion. My question is rather vague- I want to know if there is a deeper and more intuitive reason for why reflection in spherical mirrors can be modeled as circular inversion about an imaginary circle of half the radius. I've managed to show that this is true by deriving the mirror equation from the circular inversion equation (the reverse can be done as well), but I fail to see why it's reasonable to expect an imaginary circle of half the radius to arise naturally in this scenario. In other words, I was wondering why the two constructions are equivalent, rather than how. $\endgroup$
    – Art
    Commented May 26, 2020 at 11:22

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The first thing to note is that the formula given above for spherical mirrors is only a paraxial approximation, so one part of the mystery to unravel is where the approximation comes from.

The below discusses the 2D case but equally applies to 3d.

One way to get an approximate reflection O' is to create a flat planar mirror (represented by the line) that is perpendicular to the line OC and tangent to the circular mirror.

flat mirror approximation

This approximation only works well when the point O is close to the mirror (or looked at another way, the circular mirror is very large).

Now lets use the circular mirror as a circle of inversion. The plan here is to invert point O through the circular mirror, then reflect the inverted point, then undo the inversion. Notice that inverting a point twice gets back to where you started, so to undo an inversion just apply the inversion again. So we are going to invert, reflect, invert. Let's do it!

  1. Invert. Invert the point O through the circular mirror to point O'. Since we used the mirror as the circe of inversion, the mirror looks the same after inversion.

invert

  1. Reflect. Now we can use the same reflection approximation on the inverted point. Create a flat mirror and reflect the inverted point O' to O''. This is why the final point we come up with in the end will only be an approximation. Also notice that this inversion brings far away points close to the mirror, which is what is needed for the flat mirror approximation to be accurate.

reflect

  1. Invert back. We're still in the inverted world, so we now need to invert back to the real world. Invert the reflected point O'' to O'''.

undo invert

Now here is the really cool part. We can directly get to O''' from O by a single inversion through the circle that you describe above that has half the radius of the circular mirror!

direct inversion

In hindsight, that special circle with half the radius now makes some sense. If you invert that circle through the circular mirror, it becomes the flat plane mirror we used in the reflection approximation.

So hopefully this gives some intuition on why inversion through the half circle is a good approximation for reflection in the circular mirror when the point is close to the axis of the system.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the detailed post! I think the construction you outlined is very neat, and it certainly demistifies parts of my original observation. However, I'm not entirely clear how the paraxial approximation for spherical mirrors is equivalent to the steps in the construction - invert, reflect, undo the inversion. Could you please elaborate on this a little more? I understood overall how the plane mirror transforms into the smaller circular mirror centered at the focus. $\endgroup$
    – Art
    Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ We're approximating the spherical mirror with a plane mirror, which works best if you stay close to the line OC. As you move up or down away from the line OC, the plane mirror no longer approximates the spherical mirror very well, so the reflection across the plane mirror isn't as good of an approximation. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 17:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.