Jump to content
Science Forums

Why 1.22 At Rayleigh Criterion?


inverse

Recommended Posts

above.

probably you had posted to  incorrect topic.

No. Your opening post appeared to be gibberish, so I replied in kind. 

 

"Why 1.22 at Rayleigh criterion" is not even a sentence, let alone a clear question. What are you talking about? 

 

And what does it have to do with biology (you posted in the biology section)? 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry for topic.

 

the rayleigh criterion is about eye. it is used for seperation of two different points. whether they are separate or not.

I am asking the reason for a constant (1.22,why it is 1.22) in the equation given above.

Edited by inverse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found something here: http://what-when-how.com/remote-sensing-from-air-and-space/diffraction-limits-the-rayleigh-criterion-visible-imagery-remote-sensing/

 

but these are not sufficient.

 

 

furthermore this was a homework at master level,but the time is over. I approximately presented the information given in the link but if you want to continue discussion ,well thank you.

Edited by inverse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry for topic.

 

the rayleigh criterion is about eye. it is used for seperation of two different points. whether they are separate or not.

I am asking the reason for a constant (1.22,why it is 1.22) in the equation given above.

Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying. I had to look up Rayleigh Criterion, but I now understand.

 

It is the diffraction-limited resolution of any optical system. Rayleigh's criterion for 2 sources being resolved is that the separation of the images is at or greater than the separation at which the first minimum in the diffraction pattern from one source lies on top of the central maximum of the diffraction pattern of the other object. 

 

So this is in fact physics, rather than biology, though as you say it will apply to the eye. The 1.22 factor applies only to diffraction from a circular opening (as opposed to a slit, for instance) and arises from some very complicated mathematics involving Bessel functions. I suspect this is why the derivation of the factor does not seem to be given in the usual places on the web, such as Wiki.

 

I suppose you know all that by now, but I thought it was worth reciting here for the benefit of any other readers. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes ,I know these now. but thank you for scientific conversation and yes I also think that is benefit to others

By the way, I notice in your footer than you say E=mc² is wrong.

 

Would that be because the full expression is E² = (mc²)² +p²c², or for some other reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I notice in your footer than you say E=mc² is wrong.

 

Would that be because the full expression is E² = (mc²)² +p²c², or for some other reason?

 no. your equation is approximate or contains approximation. 

mine is about my incomplete project (interdisciplinary). 

Edited by inverse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)Why do you think it is an approximation?

 

2)Please provide the reasoning and an idea of what extra terms are required for it to be accurate. 

 

Dear Editor Can you help me ,I cannot use latex code.

 

I write [tex]  [/tex] but it does not run

 

????

 

[math] m = \gamma m_0  = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} [/math]

 

still it does not run :(

Edited by inverse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...