Abbe’s theory of vision has been questioned by mathematicians, and since his death Lord Rayleigh went more deeply into the question of “the theory of the formation of optical images,” with special reference to the microscope and telescope. He has shown that two lines cannot be fairly resolved unless their components subtend an angle exceeding that subtended by the wave-length of light at a distance equal to the aperture; also, that the measure of resolution is only possible with a square aperture, or one bounded by straight lines, parallel to the lines resolved.
Lord Rayleigh’s Theory of the Formation of Optical Images, with Special Reference to the Microscope.[12]
Of the two methods adopted, that of Helmholtz’s consists in tracing the image representative of a mathematical point in the object, the point being regarded as self-luminous; that of Abbe’s the typical object was not, as we have seen, a luminous point, but a grating illuminated by plane waves of light. In the latter method, Lord Rayleigh argues that the complete representation of the object requires the co-operation of all the spectra which are focussed in the principal focal plane of the objective; when only a few are present the representation is imperfect, and wholly fails when there is only one. He then proceeds to show, by the aid of diagrams and mathematical formula, how the resolving power can be adduced.
On further criticism of the Abbe spectrum theory, he observes “that although the image ultimately formed may be considered to be due to the spectra focussed to a given point, the degree of conformity of the image to the object is another question. The consideration of the case of a very fine grating, which might afford no lateral spectra at all, shows the incorrectness of the usually accepted idea that if all the spectra are utilised the image will still be incomplete, so that the theory (originally promulgated by Abbe) requires a good deal of supplementing; while it is inapplicable when the incident light is not parallel, and when the object is, for example, a double point and not a grating. Even in the case of a grating, the spectrum theory is inapplicable, if the grating is self-luminous; for in this case no spectra can be formed since the radiations from the different elements of the grating have no permanent phase-relations.” For these reasons Lord Rayleigh advises that the question should be reconsidered from the older point of view, according to which the typical object is a point and not a grating. Such treatment will show that the theory of resolving power is essentially the same for all instruments. The peculiarities of the microscope, arising from the divergence-angles not being limited to be small, and from the different character of the illumination, are theoretically only differences of detail. These investigations can be extended to gratings, and the results so obtained confirm for the most part the conclusions of the spectrum theory.
Furthermore, that the function of the condenser in microscopic practice in throwing upon the object the image of the lamp-flame is to cause the object to behave, at any rate in some degree, as if it were self-luminous, and thus to obviate the sharply-marked interference bands which arise when permanent and definite phase-relations are permitted to exist between the radiations which issue from various points of the object. This is capable of mathematical proof; and in the case where the illumination is such that each point of the row or of the grating radiates independently, the limit to resolution is seen to depend only on the width of the aperture, and thus to be the same for all forms of aperture as for those of the rectangular. That Abbe’s theory of microscopic vision is fairly open to the criticisms passed on it by Lord Rayleigh must be taken for granted.
Definition of Aperture; Principles of Microscopic Vision.
It must be well within the last half-century that the achromatic objective-glass for the microscope was brought to perfection and its value became generally recognised. Prior to the discovery of the achromatic principle in the construction of lenses it was assumed that the formation of the microscopic image took place (as we have already seen) on ordinary dioptric principles. As the image is formed in the camera or telescope, so it was said to be in the microscope. This belief existed, it will be remembered, at a time when dry objectives only were in favour and the use of the term angle of aperture was misunderstood, when it was supposed that the different media with diffraction-indices were used; and the angle of the radiant pencil was believed not only to admit of a comparison of two apertures in the same medium, but likewise to admit of a standard of comparison when the media were entirely different in their refractive qualities.
It was during my tenure of office as secretary of the Royal Microscopical Society (1867 to 1873), that the aperture question, and also that of numerical aperture, came under discussion, both being met by the majority of the Fellows of the Society and practical opticians by a non-possumus.
Opticians alleged, that is, before the value of aperture became fully recognised (1860), that the achromatic objective had reached a stage of perfection, beyond which it was not possible to go; indeed, not only opticians, but physicists of high standing, as Professor Helmholtz, who made many important contributions to the theory of the microscope, and who, after duly weighing all the known physical laws on which the formation of images can be explained, emphatically stated that in his opinion “the limit of possible improvement of the microscope as an instrument of discovery had been very nearly reached.” A quarter of a century ago I ventured to throw a doubt upon so questionable a statement. I determined, if possible, to submit the aperture question to an exhaustive examination. My views were accordingly submitted to two of the highest authorities in this country—Sir George Airy, the then Astronomer Royal, and Sir George Stokes, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University—both of whom agreed with me that the possible increase of aperture would be attended with great advantage to the objective, and open the way to an extension of power resolution in the microscope.[13] The discussion afterwards took a warm turn, as will be seen on reference to “The Monthly Microscopical Journals” of 1874, 1875 and 1876.
The confusion into which the aperture question at this period had lapsed was no doubt due to the fact that its opponents had not yet grasped the true meaning of the term aperture. It was believed to be synonymous with “angular aperture,” much in use at the time. It will, however, appear quite unaccountable that even the older opticians should have confounded the latter with the former; and so entirely disregarded the fact that the angles of the pencil of light admitted by the objective cannot serve as a measure of its aperture, and that high refractive media can greatly reduce the value length of waves of light.