increases. When the interval is very small the discrepancy, though mathematically existent, produces no practical effect; and the illumination at B due to P is as important as that due to A, the intensities of the two luminous sources being supposed equal. Under these conditions it is clear that A and P are not separated in the image. The question is to what amount must the distance AP be increased in order that the difference of situation may make itself felt in the image. This is necessarily a question of degree; but it does not require detailed calculations in order to show that the discrepancy first becomes conspicuous when the phases corresponding to the various secondary waves which travel from P to B range over a complete period. The illumination at B due to P then becomes comparatively small, indeed for some forms of aperture evanescent. The extreme discrepancy is that between the waves which travel through the outermost parts of the object-glass at L and L′; so that if we adopt the above standard of resolution, the question is where must P be situated in order that the relative retardation of the rays PL and PL’ may on their arrival at B amount to a wave-length (λ). In virtue of the general law that the reduced optical path is stationary in value, this retardation may be calculated without allowance for the different paths pursued on the farther side of L, L′, so that the value is simply PL − PL′. Now since AP is very small, AL′ − PL′ = AP sin α, where α is the angular semi-aperture L′AB. In like manner PL − AL has the same value, so that
PL − PL′＝2AP sin α.
According to the standard adopted, the condition of resolution is therefore that AP, or ε, should exceed 12λ/sin α. If ε be less than this, the images overlap too much; while if ε greatly exceed the above value the images become unnecessarily separated.
In the above argument the whole space between the object and the lens is supposed to be occupied by matter of one refractive index, and λ represents the wave-length in this medium of the kind of light employed. If the restriction as to uniformity be violated, what we have ultimately to deal with is the wave-length in the medium immediately surrounding the object.
Calling the refractive index μ, we have as the critical value of ε,
| ε＝12λ0 /μ sin α. | (1), |
λ0 being the wave-length in vacuo. The denominator μ sin α is the quantity well known (after Abbe) as the “numerical aperture.”
The extreme value possible for α is a right angle, so that for the microscopic limit we have
| ε＝12λ0/μ | (2). |
The limit can be depressed only by a diminution in λ0, such as photography makes possible, or by an increase in μ, the refractive index of the medium in which the object is situated.
The statement of the law of resolving power has been made in a form appropriate to the microscope, but it admits also of immediate application to the telescope. If 2R be the diameter of the object-glass and D the distance of the object, the angle subtended by AP is ε/D, and the angular resolving power is given by
| λ/2D sin α＝λ/2R | (3). |
This method of derivation (substantially due to Helmholtz) makes it obvious that there is no essential difference of principle between the two cases, although the results are conveniently stated in different forms. In the case of the telescope we have to deal with a linear measure of aperture and an angular limit of resolution, whereas in the case of the microscope the limit of resolution is linear, and it is expressed in terms of angular aperture.
It must be understood that the above argument distinctly assumes that the different parts of the object are self-luminous, or at least that the light proceeding from the various points is without phase relations. As has been emphasized by G. J. Stoney, the restriction is often, perhaps usually, violated in the microscope. A different treatment is then necessary, and for some of the problems which arise under this head the method of Abbe is convenient.
The importance of the general conclusions above formulated, as imposing a limit upon our powers of direct observation, can hardly be overestimated; but there has been in some quarters a tendency to ascribe to it a more precise character than it can bear, or even to mistake its meaning altogether. A few words of further explanation may therefore be desirable. The first point to be emphasized is that nothing whatever is said as to the smallness of a single object that may be made visible. The eye, unaided or armed with a telescope, is able to see, as points of light, stars subtending no sensible angle. The visibility of a star is a question of brightness simply, and has nothing to do with resolving power. The latter element enters only when it is a question of recognizing the duplicity of a double star, or of distinguishing detail upon the surface of a planet. So in the microscope there is nothing except lack of light to hinder the visibility of an object however small. But if its dimensions be much less than the half wave-length, it can only be seen as a whole, and its parts cannot be distinctly separated, although in cases near the border line some inference may be possible, founded upon experience of what appearances are presented in various cases. Interesting observations upon particles, ultra-microscopic in the above sense, have been recorded by H. F. W. Siedentopf and R. A. Zsigmondy (Drude’s Ann., 1903, 10, p. 1).
In a somewhat similar way a dark linear interruption in a bright ground may be visible, although its actual width is much inferior to the half wave-length. In illustration of this fact a simple experiment may be mentioned. In front of the naked eye was held a piece of copper foil perforated by a fine needle hole. Observed through this the structure of some wire gauze just disappeared at a distance from the eye equal to 17 in., the gauze containing 46 meshes to the inch. On the other hand, a single wire 0·034 in. in diameter remained fairly visible up to a distance of 20 ft. The ratio between the limiting angles subtended by the periodic structure of the gauze and the diameter of the wire was (·022/·034) × (240/17) = 9·1. For further information upon this subject reference may be made to Phil. Mag., 1896, 42, p. 167; Journ. R. Micr. Soc., 1903, p. 447.
6. Coronas or Glories.—The results of the theory of the diffraction patterns due to circular apertures admit of an interesting application to coronas, such as are often seen encircling the sun and moon. They are due to the interposition of small spherules of water, which act the part of diffracting obstacles. In order to the formation of a well-defined corona it is essential that the particles be exclusively, or preponderatingly, of one size.
If the origin of light be treated as infinitely small, and be seen in focus, whether with the naked eye or with the aid of a telescope, the whole of the light in the absence of obstacles would be concentrated in the immediate neighbourhood of the focus. At other parts of the field the effect is the same, in accordance with the principle known as Babinet’s, whether the imaginary screen in front of the object-glass is generally transparent but studded with a number of opaque circular disks, or is generally opaque but perforated with corresponding apertures. Since at these points the resultant due to the whole aperture is zero, any two portions into which the whole may be divided must give equal and opposite resultants. Consider now the light diffracted in a direction many times more oblique than any with which we should be concerned, were the whole aperture uninterrupted, and take first the effect of a single small aperture. The light in the proposed direction is that determined by the size of the small aperture in accordance with the laws already investigated, and its phase depends upon the position of the aperture. If we take a direction such that the light (of given wave-length) from a single aperture vanishes, the evanescence continues even when the whole series of apertures is brought into contemplation. Hence, whatever else may happen, there must be a system of dark rings formed, the same as from a single small aperture. In directions other than these it is a more delicate question how the partial effects should be compounded. If we make the extreme suppositions of an infinitely small source and absolutely homogeneous light, there is no escape from the conclusion that the light in a definite direction is arbitrary, that is, dependent upon the chance distribution of apertures. If, however, as in practice, the light be heterogeneous, the source of finite area, the obstacles in motion, and the discrimination of different directions imperfect, we are concerned merely with the mean brightness found by varying the arbitrary phase-relations, and this is obtained by simply multiplying the brightness due to a single aperture by the number of apertures (n) (see Interference of Light, § 4). The diffraction pattern is therefore that due to a single aperture, merely brightened n times.
In his experiments upon this subject Fraunhofer employed plates of glass dusted over with lycopodium, or studded with small metallic disks of uniform size; and he found that the diameters of the rings were proportional to the length of the waves and inversely as the diameter of the disks.
In another respect the observations of Fraunhofer appear at first sight to be in disaccord with theory; for his measures of the diameters of the red rings, visible when white light was employed, correspond with the law applicable to dark rings, and not to the different law applicable to the luminous maxima. Verdet has, however, pointed out that the observation in this form is essentially different from that in which homogeneous red light is employed, and that the position of the red rings would correspond to the absence of blue-green light rather than to the greatest abundance of red light. Verdet’s own observations, conducted with great care, fully confirm this view, and exhibit a complete agreement with theory.
By measurements of coronas it is possible to infer the size of the particles to which they are due, an application of considerable interest in the case of natural coronas—the general rule being the larger the corona the smaller the water spherules. Young employed this method not only to determine the diameters of cloud particles (e.g. 1⁄1000 in.), but also those of fibrous material, for which the theory is analogous. His instrument was called the eriometer (see “Chromatics,” vol. iii. of supp. to Ency. Brit., 1817).
7. Influence of Aberration. Optical Power of Instruments.—Our investigations and estimates of resolving power have thus far proceeded upon the supposition that there are no optical imperfections, whether of the nature of a regular aberration or dependent upon irregularities of material and workmanship. In
