text:
Aberration (astronomy)

In astronomy, aberration (also referred to as astronomical aberration, stellar aberration, or velocity aberration) is a phenomenon where celestial objects exhibit an apparent motion about their true positions based on the velocity of the observer: It causes objects to appear to be displaced towards the observer's direction of motion. The change in angle is of the order of $$v/c$$ where $$c$$ is the speed of light and $$v$$ the velocity of the observer. In the case of "stellar" or "annual" aberration, the apparent position of a star to an observer on Earth varies periodically over the course of a year as the Earth's velocity changes as it revolves around the Sun, by a maximum angle of approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination.

The term aberration has historically been used to refer to a number of related phenomena concerning the propagation of light in moving bodies. Aberration is distinct from parallax, which is a change in the apparent position of a relatively nearby object, as measured by a moving observer, relative to more distant objects that define a reference frame. The amount of parallax depends on the distance of the object from the observer, whereas aberration does not. Aberration is also related to light-time correction and relativistic beaming, although it is often considered separately from these effects.

Aberration is historically significant because of its role in the development of the theories of light, electromagnetism and, ultimately, the theory of special relativity. It was first observed in the late 1600s by astronomers searching for stellar parallax in order to confirm the heliocentric model of the Solar System. However, it was not understood at the time to be a different phenomenon. In 1727, James Bradley provided a classical explanation for it in terms of the finite speed of light relative to the motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, which he used to make one of the earliest measurements of the speed of light. However, Bradley's theory was incompatible with 19th-century theories of light, and aberration became a major motivation for the aether drag theories of Augustin Fresnel (in 1818) and G. G. Stokes (in 1845), and for Hendrik Lorentz's aether theory of electromagnetism in 1892. The aberration of light, together with Lorentz's elaboration of Maxwell's electrodynamics, the moving magnet and conductor problem, the negative aether drift experiments, as well as the Fizeau experiment, led Albert Einstein to develop the theory of special relativity in 1905, which presents a general form of the equation for aberration in terms of such theory.

Explanation

Aberration may be explained as the difference in angle of a beam of light in different inertial frames of reference. A common analogy is to consider the apparent direction of falling rain. If rain is falling vertically in the frame of reference of a person standing still, then to a person moving forwards the rain will appear to arrive at an angle, requiring the moving observer to tilt their umbrella forwards. The faster the observer moves, the more tilt is needed.

The net effect is that light rays striking the moving observer from the sides in a stationary frame will come angled from ahead in the moving observer's frame. This effect is sometimes called the "searchlight" or "headlight" effect.

In the case of annual aberration of starlight, the direction of incoming starlight as seen in the Earth's moving frame is tilted relative to the angle observed in the Sun's frame. Since the direction of motion of the Earth changes during its orbit, the direction of this tilting changes during the course of the year, and causes the apparent position of the star to differ from its true position as measured in the inertial frame of the Sun.

While classical reasoning gives intuition for aberration, it leads to a number of physical paradoxes observable even at the classical level (see history). The theory of special relativity is required to correctly account for aberration. The relativistic explanation is very similar to the classical one however, and in both theories aberration may be understood as a case of addition of velocities.

Classical explanation
In the Sun's frame, consider a beam of light with velocity equal to the speed of light $$c$$, with x and y velocity components $$u_x$$ and $$u_y$$, and thus at an angle $$\theta$$ such that $$\tan(\theta) = u_y/u_x$$. If the Earth is moving at velocity $$v$$ in the x direction relative to the Sun, then by velocity addition the x component of the beam's velocity in the Earth's frame of reference is $$u_x' = u_x + v$$, and the y velocity is unchanged, $$u_y' = u_y$$. Thus the angle of the light in the Earth's frame in terms of the angle in the Sun's frame is

 * $$\tan(\phi) = \frac{u_y'}{u_x'} = \frac{u_y}{u_x+v} = \frac{\sin(\theta)}{v/c + \cos(\theta)}$$

In the case of $$\theta = 90^\circ$$, this result reduces to $$\tan(\theta - \phi) = v/c$$, which in the limit $$v/c \ll 1$$ may be approximated by $$\theta - \phi = v/c$$.

Relativistic explanation
The reasoning in the relativistic case is the same except that the relativistic velocity addition formulas must be used, which can be derived from Lorentz transformations between different frames of reference. These formulas are

 * $$u_x' = (u_x + v)/(1+u_x v/c^2)$$
 * $$u_y' = u_y / \gamma (1+u_x v/c^2)$$

where $$\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$, giving the components of the light beam in the Earth's frame in terms of the components in the Sun's frame. The angle of the beam in the Earth's frame is thus

 * $$\tan(\phi) = \frac{u_y'}{u_x'} = \frac{u_y}{\gamma(u_x+v)} = \frac{\sin(\theta)}{\gamma(v/c + \cos(\theta))}$$

In the case of $$\theta = 90^\circ$$, this result reduces to $$\sin(\theta - \phi) = v/c$$, and in the limit $$v/c \ll 1$$ this may be approximated by $$\theta - \phi = v/c$$. This relativistic derivation keeps the speed of light $$\sqrt{u_x^2 + u_y^2} = c$$ constant in all frames of reference, unlike the classical derivation above.

Relationship to light-time correction and relativistic beaming

Aberration is related to two other phenomena, light-time correction, which is due to the motion of an observed object during the time taken by its light to reach an observer, and relativistic beaming, which is an angling of the light emitted by a moving light source. It can be considered equivalent to them but in a different inertial frame of reference. In aberration, the observer is considered to be moving relative to a (for the sake of simplicity ) stationary light source, while in light-time correction and relativistic beaming the light source is considered to be moving relative to a stationary observer.

Consider the case of an observer and a light source moving relative to each other at constant velocity, with a light beam moving from the source to the observer. At the moment of emission, the beam in the observer's rest frame is tilted compared to the one in the source's rest frame, as understood through relativistic beaming. During the time it takes the light beam to reach the observer the light source moves in the observer's frame, and the 'true position' of the light source is displaced relative to the apparent position the observer sees, as explained by light-time correction. Finally, the beam in the observer's frame at the moment of observation is tilted compared to the beam in source's frame, which can be understood as an aberrational effect. Thus, a person in the light source's frame would describe the apparent tilting of the beam in terms of aberration, while a person in the observer's frame would describe it as a light-time effect.

The relationship between these phenomena is only valid if the observer and source's frames are inertial frames. In practice, because the Earth is not an inertial rest frame but experiences centripetal acceleration towards the Sun, many aberrational effects such as annual aberration on Earth cannot be considered light-time corrections. However, if the time between emission and detection of the light is short compared to the orbital period of the Earth, the Earth may be approximated as an inertial frame and aberrational effects are equivalent to light-time corrections.

Types
The Astronomical Almanac describes several different types of aberration, arising from differing components of the Earth's and observed object's motion:
 * Stellar aberration: "The apparent angular displacement of the observed position of a celestial body resulting from the motion of the observer. Stellar aberration is divided into diurnal, annual, and secular components."
 * Annual aberration: "The component of stellar aberration resulting from the motion of the Earth about the Sun."
 * Diurnal aberration: "The component of stellar aberration resulting from the observer's diurnal motion about the center of the Earth due to the Earth's rotation."
 * Secular aberration: "The component of stellar aberration resulting from the essentially uniform and almost rectilinear motion of the entire solar system in space. Secular aberration is usually disregarded."
 * Planetary aberration: "The apparent angular displacement of the observed position of a solar system body from its instantaneous geocentric direction as would be seen by an observer at the geocenter. This displacement is caused by the aberration of light and light-time displacement."

Annual aberration

Annual aberration is caused by the motion of an observer on Earth as the planet revolves around the Sun. Due to orbital eccentricity, the orbital velocity $$v$$ of Earth (in the Sun's rest frame) varies periodically during the year as the planet traverses its elliptic orbit and consequently the aberration also varies periodically, typically causing stars to appear to move in small ellipses.

Approximating Earth's orbit as circular, the maximum displacement of a star due to annual aberration is known as the constant of aberration, conventionally represented by $$\kappa$$. It may be calculated using the relation $$\kappa = \theta-\phi \approx v/c $$ substituting the Earth's average speed in the Sun's frame for $$v$$ and the speed of light $$c$$. Its accepted value is 20.49552 arcseconds (sec) or 0.000099365 radians (rad) (at J2000).

Assuming a circular orbit, annual aberration causes stars exactly on the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit) to appear to move back and forth along a straight line, varying by $$\kappa$$ on either side of their position in the Sun's frame. A star that is precisely at one of the ecliptic poles (at 90° from the ecliptic plane) will appear to move in a circle of radius $$\kappa$$ about its true position, and stars at intermediate ecliptic latitudes will appear to move along a small ellipse.

For illustration, consider a star at the northern ecliptic pole viewed by an observer at a point on the Arctic Circle. Such an observer will see the star transit at the zenith, once every day (strictly speaking sidereal day). At the time of the March equinox, Earth's orbit carries the observer in a southwards direction, and the star's apparent declination is therefore displaced to the south by an angle of $$\kappa$$. On the September equinox, the star's position is displaced to the north by an equal and opposite amount. On either solstice, the displacement in declination is 0. Conversely, the amount of displacement in right ascension is 0 on either equinox and at maximum on either solstice.

In actuality, Earth's orbit is slightly elliptic rather than circular, and its speed varies somewhat over the course of its orbit, which means the description above is only approximate. Aberration is more accurately calculated using Earth's instantaneous velocity relative to the barycenter of the Solar System.

Note that the displacement due to aberration is orthogonal to any displacement due to parallax. If parallax is detectable, the maximum displacement to the south would occur in December, and the maximum displacement to the north in June. It is this apparently anomalous motion that so mystified early astronomers.

Solar annual aberration
A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its position in the Sun's rest frame by $$\kappa$$ towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic (which is from west to east, as seen from Earth). The deflection thus makes the Sun appear to be behind (or retarded) from its rest-frame position on the ecliptic by a position or angle $$\kappa$$.

This deflection may equivalently be described as a light-time effect due to motion of the Earth during the 8.3 minutes that it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth. The relation with $$\kappa$$ is : [0.000099365 rad / 2 π rad] x [365.25 d x 24 h/d x 60 min/h] = 8.3167 min ≈ 8 min 19 sec = 499 sec. This is possible since the transit time of sunlight is short relative to the orbital period of the Earth, so the Earth's frame may be approximated as inertial. In the Earth's frame, the Sun moves, at a mean velocity v = 29.789 km/s, by a distance $$\Delta x = vt$$ ≈ 14,864.7 km in the time it takes light to reach Earth, $$t=R/c$$ ≈ 499 sec for the orbit of mean radius $$R$$ = 1 AU = 149,597,870.7 km. This gives an angular correction $$\tan(\theta) \approx \theta = \Delta x/R$$ ≈ 0.000099364 rad = 20.49539 sec, which can be solved to give $$\theta = v/c = \kappa$$ ≈ 0.000099365 rad = 20.49559 sec, very nearly the same as the aberrational correction (here $$\kappa$$ is in radian and not in arcsecond).

Diurnal aberration
Diurnal aberration is caused by the velocity of the observer on the surface of the rotating Earth. It is therefore dependent not only on the time of the observation, but also the latitude and longitude of the observer. Its effect is much smaller than that of annual aberration, and is only 0.32 arcseconds in the case of an observer at the Equator, where the rotational velocity is greatest.

Secular aberration
The secular component of aberration, caused by the motion of the Solar System in space, has been further subdivided into several components: aberration resulting from the motion of the solar system barycenter around the center of our Galaxy, aberration resulting from the motion of the Galaxy relative to the Local Group, and aberration resulting from the motion of the Local Group relative to the cosmic microwave background. Secular aberration affects the apparent positions of stars and extragalactic objects. The large, constant part of secular aberration cannot be directly observed and "It has been standard practice to absorb this large, nearly constant effect into the reported" positions of stars.

In about 200 million years, the Sun circles the galactic center, whose measured location is near right ascension (α = 266.4°) and declination (δ = −29.0°). The constant, unobservable, effect of the solar system's motion around the galactic center has been computed variously as 150 or 165  arcseconds. The other, observable, part is an acceleration toward the galactic center of approximately 2.5 × 10−10 m/s2, which yields a change of aberration of about 5 μas/yr. Highly precise measurements extending over several years can observe this change in secular aberration, often called the secular aberration drift or the acceleration of the Solar System, as a small apparent proper motion.

Recently, highly precise astrometry of extragalactic objects using both Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the Gaia space observatory have successfully measured this small effect. The first VLBI measurement of the apparent motion, over a period of 20 years, of 555 extragalactic objects towards the center of our galaxy at equatorial coordinates of α = 263° and δ = −20° indicated a secular aberration drift 6.4 ±1.5 μas/yr. Later determinations using a series of VLBI measurements extending over almost 40 years determined the secular aberration drift to be 5.83 ± 0.23 μas/yr in the direction α = 270.2 ± 2.3° and δ = −20.2° ± 3.6°. Optical observations using only 33 months of Gaia satellite data of 1.6 million extragalactic sources indicated an acceleration of the solar system of 2.32 ± 0.16 × 10−10 m/s2 and a corresponding secular aberration drift of 5.05 ± 0.35 μas/yr in the direction of α = 269.1° ± 5.4°, δ = −31.6° ± 4.1°. It is expected that later Gaia data releases, incorporating about 66 and 120 months of data, will reduce the random errors of these results by factors of 0.35 and 0.15. The latest edition of the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF3) adopted a recommended galactocentric aberration constant of 5.8 μas/yr and recommended a correction for secular aberration to obtain the highest positional accuracy for times other than the reference epoch 2015.0.

Planetary aberration
Planetary aberration is the combination of the aberration of light (due to Earth's velocity) and light-time correction (due to the object's motion and distance), as calculated in the rest frame of the Solar System. Both are determined at the instant when the moving object's light reaches the moving observer on Earth. It is so called because it is usually applied to planets and other objects in the Solar System whose motion and distance are accurately known.

Discovery and first observations
The discovery of the aberration of light was totally unexpected, and it was only by considerable perseverance and perspicacity that Bradley was able to explain it in 1727. It originated from attempts to discover whether stars possessed appreciable parallaxes.

Search for stellar parallax
The Copernican heliocentric theory of the Solar System had received confirmation by the observations of Galileo and Tycho Brahe and the mathematical investigations of Kepler and Newton. As early as 1573, Thomas Digges had suggested that parallactic shifting of the stars should occur according to the heliocentric model, and consequently if stellar parallax could be observed it would help confirm this theory. Many observers claimed to have determined such parallaxes, but Tycho Brahe and Giovanni Battista Riccioli concluded that they existed only in the minds of the observers, and were due to instrumental and personal errors. However, in 1680 Jean Picard, in his Voyage d'Uranibourg, stated, as a result of ten years' observations, that Polaris, the Pole Star, exhibited variations in its position amounting to 40 annually. Some astronomers endeavoured to explain this by parallax, but these attempts failed because the motion differed from that which parallax would produce. John Flamsteed, from measurements made in 1689 and succeeding years with his mural quadrant, similarly concluded that the declination of Polaris was 40 less in July than in September. Robert Hooke, in 1674, published his observations of γ Draconis, a star of magnitude 2m which passes practically overhead at the latitude of London (hence its observations are largely free from the complex corrections due to atmospheric refraction), and concluded that this star was 23 more northerly in July than in October.

James Bradley's observations

Consequently, when Bradley and Samuel Molyneux entered this sphere of research in 1725, there was still considerable uncertainty as to whether stellar parallaxes had been observed or not, and it was with the intention of definitely answering this question that they erected a large telescope at Molyneux's house at Kew. They decided to reinvestigate the motion of γ Draconis with a telescope constructed by George Graham (1675–1751), a celebrated instrument-maker. This was fixed to a vertical chimney stack in such manner as to permit a small oscillation of the eyepiece, the amount of which (i.e. the deviation from the vertical) was regulated and measured by the introduction of a screw and a plumb line.

The instrument was set up in November 1725, and observations on γ Draconis were made starting in December. The star was observed to move 40 southwards between September and March, and then reversed its course from March to September. At the same time, 35 Camelopardalis, a star with a right ascension nearly exactly opposite to that of γ Draconis, was 19" more northerly at the beginning of March than in September. The asymmetry of these results, which were expected to be mirror images of each other, were completely unexpected and inexplicable by existing theories.

Early hypotheses

Bradley and Molyneux discussed several hypotheses in the hope of finding the solution. Since the apparent motion was evidently caused neither by parallax nor observational errors, Bradley first hypothesized that it could be due to oscillations in the orientation of the Earth's axis relative to the celestial sphere – a phenomenon known as nutation. 35 Camelopardalis was seen to possess an apparent motion which could be consistent with nutation, but since its declination varied only one half as much as that of γ Draconis, it was obvious that nutation did not supply the answer (however, Bradley later went on to discover that the Earth does indeed nutate). He also investigated the possibility that the motion was due to an irregular distribution of the Earth's atmosphere, thus involving abnormal variations in the refractive index, but again obtained negative results.

On August 19, 1727, Bradley embarked upon a further series of observations using a telescope of his own erected at the Rectory, Wanstead. This instrument had the advantage of a larger field of view and he was able to obtain precise positions of a large number of stars over the course of about twenty years. During his first two years at Wanstead, he established the existence of the phenomenon of aberration beyond all doubt, and this also enabled him to formulate a set of rules that would allow the calculation of the effect on any given star at a specified date.

Development of the theory of aberration
Bradley eventually developed his explanation of aberration in about September 1728 and this theory was presented to the Royal Society in mid January the following year. One well-known story was that he saw the change of direction of a wind vane on a boat on the Thames, caused not by an alteration of the wind itself, but by a change of course of the boat relative to the wind direction. However, there is no record of this incident in Bradley's own account of the discovery, and it may therefore be apocryphal.

The following table shows the magnitude of deviation from true declination for γ Draconis and the direction, on the planes of the solstitial colure and ecliptic prime meridian, of the tangent of the velocity of the Earth in its orbit for each of the four months where the extremes are found, as well as expected deviation from true ecliptic longitude if Bradley had measured its deviation from right ascension:

Bradley proposed that the aberration of light not only affected declination, but right ascension as well, so that a star in the pole of the ecliptic would describe a little ellipse with a diameter of about 40", but for simplicity, he assumed it to be a circle. Since he only observed the deviation in declination, and not in right ascension, his calculations for the maximum deviation of a star in the pole of the ecliptic are for its declination only, which will coincide with the diameter of the little circle described by such star. For eight different stars, his calculations are as follows:

Based on these calculations, Bradley was able to estimate the constant of aberration at 20.2", which is equal to 0.00009793 radians, and with this was able to estimate the speed of light at 183300 mi per second. By projecting the little circle for a star in the pole of the ecliptic, he could simplify the calculation of the relationship between the speed of light and the speed of the Earth's annual motion in its orbit as follows:

 * $$\cos\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi-0.00009793\right) = \sin(0.00009793) = \frac{v}{c} $$

Thus, the speed of light to the speed of the Earth's annual motion in its orbit is 10,210 to one, from whence it would follow, that light moves, or is propagated as far as from the Sun to the Earth in 8 minutes 12 seconds.

The original motivation of the search for stellar parallax was to test the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The change of aberration in the course of the year demonstrates the relative motion of the Earth and the stars.

Retrodiction on Descartes' lightspeed argument
In the prior century, René Descartes argued that if light were not instantaneous, then shadows of moving objects would lag; and if propagation times over terrestrial distances were appreciable, then during a lunar eclipse the Sun, Earth, and Moon would be out of alignment by hours' motion, contrary to observation. Huygens commented that, on Rømer's lightspeed data (yielding an earth-moon round-trip time of only seconds), the lag angle would be imperceptible. What they both overlooked is that aberration (as understood only later) would exactly counteract the lag even if large, leaving this eclipse method completely insensitive to light speed. (Otherwise, shadow-lag methods could be made to sense absolute translational motion, contrary to a basic principle of relativity.)

Historical theories of aberration
The phenomenon of aberration became a driving force for many physical theories during the 200 years between its observation and the explanation by Albert Einstein.

The first classical explanation was provided in 1729, by James Bradley as described above, who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in its orbit around the Sun. However, this explanation proved inaccurate once the wave nature of light was better understood, and correcting it became a major goal of the 19th century theories of luminiferous aether. Augustin-Jean Fresnel proposed a correction due to the motion of a medium (the aether) through which light propagated, known as "partial aether drag". He proposed that objects partially drag the aether along with them as they move, and this became the accepted explanation for aberration for some time. George Stokes proposed a similar theory, explaining that aberration occurs due to the flow of aether induced by the motion of the Earth. Accumulated evidence against these explanations, combined with new understanding of the electromagnetic nature of light, led Hendrik Lorentz to develop an electron theory which featured an immobile aether, and he explained that objects contract in length as they move through the aether. Motivated by these previous theories, Albert Einstein then developed the theory of special relativity in 1905, which provides the modern account of aberration.

Bradley's classical explanation

Bradley conceived of an explanation in terms of a corpuscular theory of light in which light is made of particles. His classical explanation appeals to the motion of the earth relative to a beam of light-particles moving at a finite velocity, and is developed in the Sun's frame of reference, unlike the classical derivation given above.

Consider the case where a distant star is motionless relative to the Sun, and the star is extremely far away, so that parallax may be ignored. In the rest frame of the Sun, this means light from the star travels in parallel paths to the Earth observer, and arrives at the same angle regardless of where the Earth is in its orbit. Suppose the star is observed on Earth with a telescope, idealized as a narrow tube. The light enters the tube from the star at angle $$\theta$$ and travels at speed $$c$$ taking a time $$h/c$$ to reach the bottom of the tube, where it is detected. Suppose observations are made from Earth, which is moving with a speed $$v$$. During the transit of the light, the tube moves a distance $$vh/c$$. Consequently, for the particles of light to reach the bottom of the tube, the tube must be inclined at an angle $$\phi$$ different from $$\theta$$, resulting in an apparent position of the star at angle $$\phi$$. As the Earth proceeds in its orbit it changes direction, so $$\phi$$ changes with the time of year the observation is made. The apparent angle and true angle are related using trigonometry as:

 * $$\tan(\phi) = \frac { h\sin(\theta)}{hv/c + h \cos (\theta)}=\frac { \sin(\theta)}{v/c + \cos (\theta)}$$.

In the case of $$\theta = 90^\circ$$, this gives $$\tan(\theta - \phi) = v/c$$. While this is different from the more accurate relativistic result described above, in the limit of small angle and low velocity they are approximately the same, within the error of the measurements of Bradley's day. These results allowed Bradley to make one of the earliest measurements of the speed of light.

Luminiferous aether
In the early nineteenth century the wave theory of light was being rediscovered, and in 1804 Thomas Young adapted Bradley's explanation for corpuscular light to wavelike light traveling through a medium known as the luminiferous aether. His reasoning was the same as Bradley's, but it required that this medium be immobile in the Sun's reference frame and must pass through the earth unaffected, otherwise the medium (and therefore the light) would move along with the earth and no aberration would be observed. He wrote: "Upon consideration of the phenomena of the aberration of the stars I am disposed to believe that the luminiferous aether pervades the substance of all material bodies with little or no resistance, as freely perhaps as the wind passes through a grove of trees."

However, it soon became clear Young's theory could not account for aberration when materials with a non-vacuum refractive index were present. An important example is of a telescope filled with water. The speed of light in such a telescope will be slower than in vacuum, and is given by $$c/n$$ rather than $$c$$ where $$n$$ is the refractive index of the water. Thus, by Bradley and Young's reasoning the aberration angle is given by

 * $$\tan(\phi) = \frac { \sin(\theta)}{v/(c/n) + \cos (\theta)}$$.

which predicts a medium-dependent angle of aberration. When refraction at the telescope's objective is taken into account this result deviates even more from the vacuum result. In 1810 François Arago performed a similar experiment and found that the aberration was unaffected by the medium in the telescope, providing solid evidence against Young's theory. This experiment was subsequently verified by many others in the following decades, most accurately by Airy in 1871, with the same result.

Fresnel's aether drag
In 1818, Augustin Fresnel developed a modified explanation to account for the water telescope and for other aberration phenomena. He explained that the aether is generally at rest in the Sun's frame of reference, but objects partially drag the aether along with them as they move. That is, the aether in an object of index of refraction $$n$$ moving at velocity $$v$$ is partially dragged with a velocity $$(1-1/n^2)v$$ bringing the light along with it. This factor is known as "Fresnel's dragging coefficient". This dragging effect, along with refraction at the telescope's objective, compensates for the slower speed of light in the water telescope in Bradley's explanation. With this modification Fresnel obtained Bradley's vacuum result even for non-vacuum telescopes, and was also able to predict many other phenomena related to the propagation of light in moving bodies. Fresnel's dragging coefficient became the dominant explanation of aberration for the next decades.

Stokes' aether drag
However, the fact that light is polarized (discovered by Fresnel himself) led scientists such as Cauchy and Green to believe that the aether was a totally immobile elastic solid as opposed to Fresnel's fluid aether. There was thus renewed need for an explanation of aberration consistent both with Fresnel's predictions (and Arago's observations) as well as polarization.

In 1845, Stokes proposed a 'putty-like' aether which acts as a liquid on large scales but as a solid on small scales, thus supporting both the transverse vibrations required for polarized light and the aether flow required to explain aberration. Making only the assumptions that the fluid is irrotational and that the boundary conditions of the flow are such that the aether has zero velocity far from the Earth, but moves at the Earth's velocity at its surface and within it, he was able to completely account for aberration. The velocity of the aether outside of the Earth would decrease as a function of distance from the Earth so light rays from stars would be progressively dragged as they approached the surface of the Earth. The Earth's motion would be unaffected by the aether due to D'Alembert's paradox.

Both Fresnel and Stokes' theories were popular. However, the question of aberration was put aside during much of the second half of the 19th century as focus of inquiry turned to the electromagnetic properties of aether.

Lorentz' length contraction
In the 1880s once electromagnetism was better understood, interest turned again to the problem of aberration. By this time flaws were known to both Fresnel's and Stokes' theories. Fresnel's theory required that the relative velocity of aether and matter to be different for light of different colors, and it was shown that the boundary conditions Stokes had assumed in his theory were inconsistent with his assumption of irrotational flow. At the same time, the modern theories of electromagnetic aether could not account for aberration at all. Many scientists such as Maxwell, Heaviside and Hertz unsuccessfully attempted to solve these problems by incorporating either Fresnel or Stokes' theories into Maxwell's new electromagnetic laws.

Hendrik Lorentz spent considerable effort along these lines. After working on this problem for a decade, the issues with Stokes' theory caused him to abandon it and to follow Fresnel's suggestion of a (mostly) stationary aether (1892, 1895). However, in Lorentz's model the aether was completely immobile, like the electromagnetic aethers of Cauchy, Green and Maxwell and unlike Fresnel's aether. He obtained Fresnel's dragging coefficient from modifications of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, including a modification of the time coordinates in moving frames ("local time"). In order to explain the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887), which apparently contradicted both Fresnel's and Lorentz's immobile aether theories, and apparently confirmed Stokes' complete aether drag, Lorentz theorized (1892) that objects undergo "length contraction" by a factor of $$\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ in the direction of their motion through the aether. In this way, aberration (and all related optical phenomena) can be accounted for in the context of an immobile aether. Lorentz' theory became the basis for much research in the next decade, and beyond. Its predictions for aberration are identical to those of the relativistic theory.

Special relativity
Lorentz' theory matched experiment well, but it was complicated and made many unsubstantiated physical assumptions about the microscopic nature of electromagnetic media. In his 1905 theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein reinterpreted the results of Lorentz' theory in a much simpler and more natural conceptual framework which disposed of the idea of an aether. His derivation is given above, and is now the accepted explanation. Robert S. Shankland reported some conversations with Einstein, in which Einstein emphasized the importance of aberration:

"He continued to say the experimental results which had influenced him most were the observations of stellar aberration and Fizeau's measurements on the speed of light in moving water. 'They were enough,' he said."

Other important motivations for Einstein's development of relativity were the moving magnet and conductor problem and (indirectly) the negative aether drift experiments, already mentioned by him in the introduction of his first relativity paper. Einstein wrote in a note in 1952:

"My own thought was more indirectly influenced by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. I learned of it through Lorentz' path breaking investigation on the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1895), of which I knew before the establishment of the special theory of relativity. Lorentz' basic assumption of a resting ether did not seem directly convincing to me, since it led to an [struck out: to me artificial appearing] interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which [struck out: did not convince me] seemed unnatural to me. My direct path to the sp. th. rel. was mainly determined by the conviction that the electromotive force induced in a conductor moving in a magnetic field is nothing other than an electric field. But the result of Fizeau's experiment and the phenomenon of aberration also guided me."

While Einstein's result is the same as Bradley's original equation except for an extra factor of $$\gamma$$, Bradley's result does not merely give the classical limit of the relativistic case, in the sense that it gives incorrect predictions even at low relative velocities. Bradley's explanation cannot account for situations such as the water telescope, nor for many other optical effects (such as interference) that might occur within the telescope. This is because in the Earth's frame it predicts that the direction of propagation of the light beam in the telescope is not normal to the wavefronts of the beam, in contradiction with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. It also does not preserve the speed of light c between frames. However, Bradley did correctly infer that the effect was due to relative velocities.

title: Aberration (astronomy)


text:
Optical aberration

In optics, aberration is a property of optical systems, such as lenses, that causes light to be spread out over some region of space rather than focused to a point. Aberrations cause the image formed by a lens to be blurred or distorted, with the nature of the distortion depending on the type of aberration. Aberration can be defined as a departure of the performance of an optical system from the predictions of paraxial optics. In an imaging system, it occurs when light from one point of an object does not converge into (or does not diverge from) a single point after transmission through the system. Aberrations occur because the simple paraxial theory is not a completely accurate model of the effect of an optical system on light, rather than due to flaws in the optical elements.

An image-forming optical system with aberration will produce an image which is not sharp. Makers of optical instruments need to correct optical systems to compensate for aberration.

Aberration can be analyzed with the techniques of geometrical optics. The articles on reflection, refraction and caustics discuss the general features of reflected and refracted rays.

Overview

With an ideal lens, light from any given point on an object would pass through the lens and come together at a single point in the image plane (or, more generally, the image surface). Real lenses do not focus light exactly to a single point, however, even when they are perfectly made. These deviations from the idealized lens performance are called aberrations of the lens.

Aberrations fall into two classes: monochromatic and chromatic. Monochromatic aberrations are caused by the geometry of the lens or mirror and occur both when light is reflected and when it is refracted. They appear even when using monochromatic light, hence the name.

Chromatic aberrations are caused by dispersion, the variation of a lens's refractive index with wavelength. Because of dispersion, different wavelengths of light come to focus at different points. Chromatic aberration does not appear when monochromatic light is used.

Monochromatic aberrations
The most common monochromatic aberrations are:

 * Defocus
 * Spherical aberration
 * Coma
 * Astigmatism
 * Field curvature
 * Image distortion

Although defocus is technically the lowest-order of the optical aberrations, it is usually not considered as a lens aberration, since it can be corrected by moving the lens (or the image plane) to bring the image plane to the optical focus of the lens.

In addition to these aberrations, piston and tilt are effects which shift the position of the focal point. Piston and tilt are not true optical aberrations, since when an otherwise perfect wavefront is altered by piston and tilt, it will still form a perfect, aberration-free image, only shifted to a different position.

Chromatic aberrations
Chromatic aberration occurs when different wavelengths are not focussed to the same point. Types of chromatic aberration are:

 * Axial (or "longitudinal") chromatic aberration
 * Lateral (or "transverse") chromatic aberration

Theory of monochromatic aberration
In a perfect optical system in the classical theory of optics, rays of light proceeding from any object point unite in an image point; and therefore the object space is reproduced in an image space. The introduction of simple auxiliary terms, due to Gauss, named the focal lengths and focal planes, permits the determination of the image of any object for any system. The Gaussian theory, however, is only true so long as the angles made by all rays with the optical axis (the symmetrical axis of the system) are infinitely small, i.e., with infinitesimal objects, images and lenses; in practice these conditions may not be realized, and the images projected by uncorrected systems are, in general, ill-defined and often blurred if the aperture or field of view exceeds certain limits.

The investigations of James Clerk Maxwell and Ernst Abbe showed that the properties of these reproductions, i.e., the relative position and magnitude of the images, are not special properties of optical systems, but necessary consequences of the supposition (per Abbe) of the reproduction of all points of a space in image points, and are independent of the manner in which the reproduction is effected. These authors showed, however, that no optical system can justify these suppositions, since they are contradictory to the fundamental laws of reflection and refraction. Consequently, the Gaussian theory only supplies a convenient method of approximating reality; realistic optical systems fall short of this unattainable ideal. Currently, all that can be accomplished is the projection of a single plane onto another plane; but even in this, aberrations always occurs and it may be unlikely that these will ever be entirely corrected.

Aberration of axial points (spherical aberration in the restricted sense)

Let S (fig. 1) be any optical system, rays proceeding from an axis point O under an angle u1 will unite in the axis point O'1; and those under an angle u2 in the axis point O'2. If there is refraction at a collective spherical surface, or through a thin positive lens, O'2 will lie in front of O'1 so long as the angle u2 is greater than u1 (under correction); and conversely with a dispersive surface or lenses (over correction). The caustic, in the first case, resembles the sign > (greater than); in the second < (less than). If the angle u1 is very small, O'1 is the Gaussian image; and O'1 O'2 is termed the longitudinal aberration, and O'1R the lateral aberration of the pencils with aperture u2. If the pencil with the angle u2 is that of the maximum aberration of all the pencils transmitted, then in a plane perpendicular to the axis at O'1 there is a circular disk of confusion of radius O'1R, and in a parallel plane at O'2 another one of radius O'2R2; between these two is situated the disk of least confusion.

The largest opening of the pencils, which take part in the reproduction of O, i.e., the angle u, is generally determined by the margin of one of the lenses or by a hole in a thin plate placed between, before, or behind the lenses of the system. This hole is termed the stop or diaphragm; Abbe used the term aperture stop for both the hole and the limiting margin of the lens. The component S1 of the system, situated between the aperture stop and the object O, projects an image of the diaphragm, termed by Abbe the entrance pupil; the exit pupil is the image formed by the component S2, which is placed behind the aperture stop. All rays which issue from O and pass through the aperture stop also pass through the entrance and exit pupils, since these are images of the aperture stop. Since the maximum aperture of the pencils issuing from O is the angle u subtended by the entrance pupil at this point, the magnitude of the aberration will be determined by the position and diameter of the entrance pupil. If the system be entirely behind the aperture stop, then this is itself the entrance pupil (front stop); if entirely in front, it is the exit pupil (back stop).

If the object point be infinitely distant, all rays received by the first member of the system are parallel, and their intersections, after traversing the system, vary according to their perpendicular height of incidence, i.e. their distance from the axis. This distance replaces the angle u in the preceding considerations; and the aperture, i.e., the radius of the entrance pupil, is its maximum value.

Aberration of elements, i.e. smallest objects at right angles to the axis
If rays issuing from O (fig. 1) are concurrent, it does not follow that points in a portion of a plane perpendicular at O to the axis will be also concurrent, even if the part of the plane be very small. As the diameter of the lens increases (i.e., with increasing aperture), the neighboring point N will be reproduced, but attended by aberrations comparable in magnitude to ON. These aberrations are avoided if, according to Abbe, the sine condition, sin u'1/sin u1=sin u'2/sin u2, holds for all rays reproducing the point O. If the object point O is infinitely distant, u1 and u2 are to be replaced by h1 and h2, the perpendicular heights of incidence; the sine condition then becomes sin u'1/h1=sin u'2/h2. A system fulfilling this condition and free from spherical aberration is called aplanatic (Greek a-, privative, plann, a wandering). This word was first used by Robert Blair to characterize a superior achromatism, and, subsequently, by many writers to denote freedom from spherical aberration as well.

Since the aberration increases with the distance of the ray from the center of the lens, the aberration increases as the lens diameter increases (or, correspondingly, with the diameter of the aperture), and hence can be minimized by reducing the aperture, at the cost of also reducing the amount of light reaching the image plane.

Aberration of lateral object points (points beyond the axis) with narrow pencils — astigmatism

A point O (fig. 2) at a finite distance from the axis (or with an infinitely distant object, a point which subtends a finite angle at the system) is, in general, even then not sharply reproduced if the pencil of rays issuing from it and traversing the system is made infinitely narrow by reducing the aperture stop; such a pencil consists of the rays which can pass from the object point through the now infinitely small entrance pupil. It is seen (ignoring exceptional cases) that the pencil does not meet the refracting or reflecting surface at right angles; therefore it is astigmatic (Gr. a-, privative, stigmia, a point). Naming the central ray passing through the entrance pupil the axis of the pencil or principal ray, it can be said: the rays of the pencil intersect, not in one point, but in two focal lines, which can be assumed to be at right angles to the principal ray; of these, one lies in the plane containing the principal ray and the axis of the system, i.e. in the first principal section or meridional section, and the other at right angles to it, i.e. in the second principal section or sagittal section. We receive, therefore, in no single intercepting plane behind the system, as, for example, a focusing screen, an image of the object point; on the other hand, in each of two planes lines O' and O" are separately formed (in neighboring planes ellipses are formed), and in a plane between O' and O" a circle of least confusion. The interval O'O", termed the astigmatic difference, increases, in general, with the angle W made by the principal ray OP with the axis of the system, i.e. with the field of view. Two astigmatic image surfaces correspond to one object plane; and these are in contact at the axis point; on the one lie the focal lines of the first kind, on the other those of the second.  Systems in which the two astigmatic surfaces coincide are termed anastigmatic or stigmatic.

Sir Isaac Newton was probably the discoverer of astigmation; the position of the astigmatic image lines was determined by Thomas Young; and the theory was developed by Allvar Gullstrand. A bibliography by P. Culmann is given in Moritz von Rohr's Die Bilderzeugung in optischen Instrumenten.

Aberration of lateral object points with broad pencils — coma
By opening the stop wider, similar deviations arise for lateral points as have been already discussed for axial points; but in this case they are much more complicated. The course of the rays in the meridional section is no longer symmetrical to the principal ray of the pencil; and on an intercepting plane there appears, instead of a luminous point, a patch of light, not symmetrical about a point, and often exhibiting a resemblance to a comet having its tail directed towards or away from the axis. From this appearance it takes its name. The unsymmetrical form of the meridional pencil—formerly the only one considered—is coma in the narrower sense only; other errors of coma have been treated by Arthur König and Moritz von Rohr, and later by Allvar Gullstrand.

Curvature of the field of the image
If the above errors be eliminated, the two astigmatic surfaces united, and a sharp image obtained with a wide aperture—there remains the necessity to correct the curvature of the image surface, especially when the image is to be received upon a plane surface, e.g. in photography. In most cases the surface is concave towards the system.

Distortion of the image

Even if the image is sharp, it may be distorted compared to ideal pinhole projection. In pinhole projection, the magnification of an object is inversely proportional to its distance to the camera along the optical axis so that a camera pointing directly at a flat surface reproduces that flat surface. Distortion can be thought of as stretching the image non-uniformly, or, equivalently, as a variation in magnification across the field. While "distortion" can include arbitrary deformation of an image, the most pronounced modes of distortion produced by conventional imaging optics is "barrel distortion", in which the center of the image is magnified more than the perimeter (figure 3a). The reverse, in which the perimeter is magnified more than the center, is known as "pincushion distortion" (figure 3b). This effect is called lens distortion or image distortion, and there are algorithms to correct it.

Systems free of distortion are called orthoscopic (orthos, right, skopein to look) or rectilinear (straight lines).

This aberration is quite distinct from that of the sharpness of reproduction; in unsharp, reproduction, the question of distortion arises if only parts of the object can be recognized in the figure. If, in an unsharp image, a patch of light corresponds to an object point, the center of gravity of the patch may be regarded as the image point, this being the point where the plane receiving the image, e.g., a focusing screen, intersects the ray passing through the middle of the stop. This assumption is justified if a poor image on the focusing screen remains stationary when the aperture is diminished; in practice, this generally occurs. This ray, named by Abbe a principal ray (not to be confused with the principal rays of the Gaussian theory), passes through the center of the entrance pupil before the first refraction, and the center of the exit pupil after the last refraction. From this it follows that correctness of drawing depends solely upon the principal rays; and is independent of the sharpness or curvature of the image field. Referring to fig. 4, we have O'Q'/OQ = a' tan w'/a tan w = 1/N, where N is the scale or magnification of the image. For N to be constant for all values of w, a' tan w'/a tan w must also be constant. If the ratio a'/a be sufficiently constant, as is often the case, the above relation reduces to the condition of Airy, i.e. tan w'/ tan w= a constant. This simple relation (see Camb. Phil.  Trans., 1830, 3, p. 1) is fulfilled in all systems which are symmetrical with respect to their diaphragm (briefly named symmetrical or holosymmetrical objectives), or which consist of two like, but different-sized, components, placed from the diaphragm in the ratio of their size, and presenting the same curvature to it (hemisymmetrical objectives); in these systems tan w' / tan w = 1.

The constancy of a'/a necessary for this relation to hold was pointed out by R. H. Bow (Brit. Journ.  Photog., 1861), and Thomas Sutton (Photographic Notes, 1862); it has been treated by O. Lummer and by M. von Rohr (Zeit. f.  Instrumentenk., 1897, 17, and 1898, 18, p. 4). It requires the middle of the aperture stop to be reproduced in the centers of the entrance and exit pupils without spherical aberration. M. von Rohr showed that for systems fulfilling neither the Airy nor the Bow-Sutton condition, the ratio a' cos w'/a tan w will be constant for one distance of the object. This combined condition is exactly fulfilled by holosymmetrical objectives reproducing with the scale 1, and by hemisymmetrical, if the scale of reproduction be equal to the ratio of the sizes of the two components.

Zernike model of aberrations

Circular wavefront profiles associated with aberrations may be mathematically modeled using Zernike polynomials. Developed by Frits Zernike in the 1930s, Zernike's polynomials are orthogonal over a circle of unit radius. A complex, aberrated wavefront profile may be curve-fitted with Zernike polynomials to yield a set of fitting coefficients that individually represent different types of aberrations. These Zernike coefficients are linearly independent, thus individual aberration contributions to an overall wavefront may be isolated and quantified separately.

There are even and odd Zernike polynomials. The even Zernike polynomials are defined as

 * $$Z^{m}_n(\rho,\phi) = R^m_n(\rho)\,\cos(m\,\phi) \!$$

and the odd Zernike polynomials as

 * $$Z^{-m}_n(\rho,\phi) = R^m_n(\rho)\,\sin(m\,\phi), \!$$

where m and n are nonnegative integers with $$n\geq m$$, Φ is the azimuthal angle in radians, and ρ is the normalized radial distance. The radial polynomials $$R^m_n$$ have no azimuthal dependence, and are defined as

 * $$R^m_n(\rho) = \! \sum_{k=0}^{(n-m)/2} \!\!\! \frac{(-1)^k\,(n-k)!}{k!\,((n+m)/2-k)!\,((n-m)/2-k)!} \;\rho^{n-2\,k} \quad\mbox{if } n-m \mbox{ is even}$$

and $$R^m_n(\rho)=0$$ if $$n-m$$ is odd.

The first few Zernike polynomials, multiplied by their respective fitting coefficients, are:

where $$\rho$$ is the normalized pupil radius with $$0 \le \rho \le 1$$, $$\phi$$ is the azimuthal angle around the pupil with $$0 \le \phi \le 2\pi$$, and the fitting coefficients $$a_0,\ldots,a_8$$ are the wavefront errors in wavelengths.

As in Fourier synthesis using sines and cosines, a wavefront may be perfectly represented by a sufficiently large number of higher-order Zernike polynomials. However, wavefronts with very steep gradients or very high spatial frequency structure, such as produced by propagation through atmospheric turbulence or aerodynamic flowfields, are not well modeled by Zernike polynomials, which tend to low-pass filter fine spatial definition in the wavefront. In this case, other fitting methods such as fractals or singular value decomposition may yield improved fitting results.

The circle polynomials were introduced by Frits Zernike to evaluate the point image of an aberrated optical system taking into account the effects of diffraction. The perfect point image in the presence of diffraction had already been described by Airy, as early as 1835. It took almost hundred years to arrive at a comprehensive theory and modeling of the point image of aberrated systems (Zernike and Nijboer). The analysis by Nijboer and Zernike describes the intensity distribution close to the optimum focal plane. An extended theory that allows the calculation of the point image amplitude and intensity over a much larger volume in the focal region was recently developed (Extended Nijboer-Zernike theory). This Extended Nijboer-Zernike theory of point image or 'point-spread function' formation has found applications in general research on image formation, especially for systems with a high numerical aperture, and in characterizing optical systems with respect to their aberrations.

Analytic treatment of aberrations
The preceding review of the several errors of reproduction belongs to the Abbe theory of aberrations, in which definite aberrations are discussed separately; it is well suited to practical needs, for in the construction of an optical instrument certain errors are sought to be eliminated, the selection of which is justified by experience. In the mathematical sense, however, this selection is arbitrary; the reproduction of a finite object with a finite aperture entails, in all probability, an infinite number of aberrations. This number is only finite if the object and aperture are assumed to be infinitely small of a certain order; and with each order of infinite smallness, i.e. with each degree of approximation to reality (to finite objects and apertures), a certain number of aberrations is associated. This connection is only supplied by theories which treat aberrations generally and analytically by means of indefinite series.

A ray proceeding from an object point O (fig. 5) can be defined by the coordinates (ξ, η). Of this point O in an object plane I, at right angles to the axis, and two other coordinates (x, y), the point in which the ray intersects the entrance pupil, i.e. the plane II. Similarly the corresponding image ray may be defined by the points (ξ', η'), and (x', y'), in the planes I' and II'. The origins of these four plane coordinate systems may be collinear with the axis of the optical system; and the corresponding axes may be parallel. Each of the four coordinates ξ', η', x', y' are functions of ξ, η, x, y; and if it be assumed that the field of view and the aperture be infinitely small, then ξ, η, x, y are of the same order of infinitesimals; consequently by expanding ξ', η', x', y' in ascending powers of ξ, η, x, y, series are obtained in which it is only necessary to consider the lowest powers. It is readily seen that if the optical system be symmetrical, the origins of the coordinate systems collinear with the optical axis and the corresponding axes parallel, then by changing the signs of ξ, η, x, y, the values ξ', η', x', y' must likewise change their sign, but retain their arithmetical values; this means that the series are restricted to odd powers of the unmarked variables.

The nature of the reproduction consists in the rays proceeding from a point O being united in another point O'; in general, this will not be the case, for ξ', η' vary if ξ, η be constant, but x, y variable. It may be assumed that the planes I' and II' are drawn where the images of the planes I and II are formed by rays near the axis by the ordinary Gaussian rules; and by an extension of these rules, not, however, corresponding to reality, the Gauss image point O'0, with coordinates ξ'0, η'0, of the point O at some distance from the axis could be constructed. Writing Dξ'=ξ'-ξ'0 and Dη'=η'-η'0, then Dξ' and Dη' are the aberrations belonging to ξ, η and x, y, and are functions of these magnitudes which, when expanded in series, contain only odd powers, for the same reasons as given above. On account of the aberrations of all rays which pass through O, a patch of light, depending in size on the lowest powers of ξ, η, x, y which the aberrations contain, will be formed in the plane I'. These degrees, named by J. Petzval the numerical orders of the image, are consequently only odd powers; the condition for the formation of an image of the mth order is that in the series for Dξ' and Dη' the coefficients of the powers of the 3rd, 5th...(m-2)th degrees must vanish. The images of the Gauss theory being of the third order, the next problem is to obtain an image of 5th order, or to make the coefficients of the powers of 3rd degree zero. This necessitates the satisfying of five equations; in other words, there are five alterations of the 3rd order, the vanishing of which produces an image of the 5th order.

The expression for these coefficients in terms of the constants of the optical system, i.e. the radii, thicknesses, refractive indices and distances between the lenses, was solved by L. Seidel; in 1840, J. Petzval constructed his portrait objective, from similar calculations which have never been published. The theory was elaborated by S. Finterswalder, who also published a posthumous paper of Seidel containing a short view of his work; a simpler form was given by A. Kerber. A. Konig and M. von Rohr have represented Kerber's method, and have deduced the Seidel formulae from geometrical considerations based on the Abbe method, and have interpreted the analytical results geometrically.

The aberrations can also be expressed by means of the characteristic function of the system and its differential coefficients, instead of by the radii, &c., of the lenses; these formulae are not immediately applicable, but give, however, the relation between the number of aberrations and the order. Sir William Rowan Hamilton (British Assoc. Report, 1833, p. 360) thus derived the aberrations of the third order; and in later times the method was pursued by Clerk Maxwell (Proc. London Math. Soc., 1874–1875; (see also the treatises of R. S. Heath and L. A. Herman), M. Thiesen (''Berlin. Akad. Sitzber., 1890, 35, p. 804), H. Bruns (Leipzig. Math. Phys. Ber., 1895, 21, p. 410), and particularly successfully by K. Schwarzschild (Göttingen. Akad. Abhandl., 1905, 4, No. 1), who thus discovered the aberrations of the 5th order (of which there are nine), and possibly the shortest proof of the practical (Seidel) formulae. A. Gullstrand (vide supra, and Ann. d. Phys.,'' 1905, 18, p. 941) founded his theory of aberrations on the differential geometry of surfaces.

The aberrations of the third order are: (1) aberration of the axis point; (2) aberration of points whose distance from the axis is very small, less than of the third order — the deviation from the sine condition and coma here fall together in one class; (3) astigmatism; (4) curvature of the field; (5) distortion.

 * 1) Aberration of the third order of axis points is dealt with in all text-books on optics.  It is very important in telescope design. In telescopes aperture is usually taken as the linear diameter of the objective. It is not the same as microscope aperture which is based on the entrance pupil or field of view as seen from the object and is expressed as an angular measurement. Higher order aberrations in telescope design can be mostly neglected. For microscopes it cannot be neglected. For a single lens of very small thickness and given power, the aberration depends upon the ratio of the radii r:r', and is a minimum (but never zero) for a certain value of this ratio; it varies inversely with the refractive index (the power of the lens remaining constant).  The total aberration of two or more very thin lenses in contact, being the sum of the individual aberrations, can be zero. This is also possible if the lenses have the same algebraic sign. Of thin positive lenses with n=1.5, four are necessary to correct spherical aberration of the third order. These systems, however, are not of great practical importance.  In most cases, two thin lenses are combined, one of which has just so strong a positive aberration (under-correction, vide supra) as the other a negative; the first must be a positive lens and the second a negative lens; the powers, however: may differ, so that the desired effect of the lens is maintained. It is generally an advantage to secure a great refractive effect by several weaker than by one high-power lens.  By one, and likewise by several, and even by an infinite number of thin lenses in contact, no more than two axis points can be reproduced without aberration of the third order. Freedom from aberration for two axis points, one of which is infinitely distant, is known as Herschel's condition. All these rules are valid, inasmuch as the thicknesses and distances of the lenses are not to be taken into account.
 * 2) The condition for freedom from coma in the third order is also of importance for telescope objectives; it is known as Fraunhofer's condition. (4) After eliminating the aberration On the axis, coma and astigmatism, the relation for the flatness of the field in the third order is expressed by the Petzval equation, S1/r(n'−n) = 0, where r is the radius of a refracting surface, n and n' the refractive indices of the neighboring media, and S the sign of summation for all refracting surfaces.

Practical elimination of aberrations

The classical imaging problem is to reproduce perfectly a finite plane (the object) onto another plane (the image) through a finite aperture. It is impossible to do so perfectly for more than one such pair of planes (this was proven with increasing generality by Maxwell in 1858, by Bruns in 1895, and by Carathéodory in 1926, see summary in Walther, A., J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 6, 415–422 (1989)). For a single pair of planes (e.g. for a single focus setting of an objective), however, the problem can in principle be solved perfectly. Examples of such a theoretically perfect system include the Luneburg lens and the Maxwell fish-eye.

Practical methods solve this problem with an accuracy which mostly suffices for the special purpose of each species of instrument. The problem of finding a system which reproduces a given object upon a given plane with given magnification (insofar as aberrations must be taken into account) could be dealt with by means of the approximation theory; in most cases, however, the analytical difficulties were too great for older calculation methods but may be ameliorated by application of modern computer systems. Solutions, however, have been obtained in special cases. At the present time constructors almost always employ the inverse method: they compose a system from certain, often quite personal experiences, and test, by the trigonometrical calculation of the paths of several rays, whether the system gives the desired reproduction (examples are given in A. Gleichen, Lehrbuch der geometrischen Optik, Leipzig and Berlin, 1902). The radii, thicknesses and distances are continually altered until the errors of the image become sufficiently small. By this method only certain errors of reproduction are investigated, especially individual members, or all, of those named above. The analytical approximation theory is often employed provisionally, since its accuracy does not generally suffice.

In order to render spherical aberration and the deviation from the sine condition small throughout the whole aperture, there is given to a ray with a finite angle of aperture u* (width infinitely distant objects: with a finite height of incidence h*) the same distance of intersection, and the same sine ratio as to one neighboring the axis (u* or h* may not be much smaller than the largest aperture U or H to be used in the system). The rays with an angle of aperture smaller than u* would not have the same distance of intersection and the same sine ratio; these deviations are called zones, and the constructor endeavors to reduce these to a minimum. The same holds for the errors depending upon the angle of the field of view, w: astigmatism, curvature of field and distortion are eliminated for a definite value, w*, zones of astigmatism, curvature of field and distortion, attend smaller values of w. The practical optician names such systems: corrected for the angle of aperture u* (the height of incidence h*) or the angle of field of view w*. Spherical aberration and changes of the sine ratios are often represented graphically as functions of the aperture, in the same way as the deviations of two astigmatic image surfaces of the image plane of the axis point are represented as functions of the angles of the field of view.

The final form of a practical system consequently rests on compromise; enlargement of the aperture results in a diminution of the available field of view, and vice versa. But the larger aperture will give the larger resolution. The following may be regarded as typical:
 * 1) Largest aperture; necessary corrections are — for the axis point, and sine condition; errors of the field of view are almost disregarded; example — high-power microscope objectives.
 * 2) Wide angle lens; necessary corrections are — for astigmatism, curvature of field and distortion; errors of the aperture only slightly regarded; examples — photographic widest angle objectives and oculars.  Between these extreme examples stands the normal lens: this is corrected more with regard to aperture; objectives for groups more with regard to the field of view.
 * 3) Long focus lenses have small fields of view and aberrations on axis are very important. Therefore zones will be kept as small as possible and design should emphasize simplicity. Because of this these lenses are the best for analytical computation.

Chromatic or color aberration
In optical systems composed of lenses, the position, magnitude and errors of the image depend upon the refractive indices of the glass employed (see Lens (optics) and Monochromatic aberration, above). Since the index of refraction varies with the color or wavelength of the light (see dispersion), it follows that a system of lenses (uncorrected) projects images of different colors in somewhat different places and sizes and with different aberrations; i.e. there are chromatic differences of the distances of intersection, of magnifications, and of monochromatic aberrations. If mixed light be employed (e.g. white light) all these images are formed and they cause a confusion, named chromatic aberration; for instance, instead of a white margin on a dark background, there is perceived a colored margin, or narrow spectrum. The absence of this error is termed achromatism, and an optical system so corrected is termed achromatic. A system is said to be chromatically under-corrected when it shows the same kind of chromatic error as a thin positive lens, otherwise it is said to be overcorrected.

If, in the first place, monochromatic aberrations be neglected — in other words, the Gaussian theory be accepted — then every reproduction is determined by the positions of the focal planes, and the magnitude of the focal lengths, or if the focal lengths, as ordinarily happens, be equal, by three constants of reproduction. These constants are determined by the data of the system (radii, thicknesses, distances, indices, etc., of the lenses); therefore their dependence on the refractive index, and consequently on the color, are calculable. The refractive indices for different wavelengths must be known for each kind of glass made use of. In this manner the conditions are maintained that any one constant of reproduction is equal for two different colors, i.e. this constant is achromatized. For example, it is possible, with one thick lens in air, to achromatize the position of a focal plane of the magnitude of the focal length. If all three constants of reproduction be achromatized, then the Gaussian image for all distances of objects is the same for the two colors, and the system is said to be in stable achromatism.

In practice it is more advantageous (after Abbe) to determine the chromatic aberration (for instance, that of the distance of intersection) for a fixed position of the object, and express it by a sum in which each component conlins the amount due to each refracting surface. In a plane containing the image point of one color, another colour produces a disk of confusion; this is similar to the confusion caused by two zones in spherical aberration. For infinitely distant objects the radius Of the chromatic disk of confusion is proportional to the linear aperture, and independent of the focal length (vide supra, Monochromatic Aberration of the Axis Point); and since this disk becomes the less harmful with an increasing image of a given object, or with increasing focal length, it follows that the deterioration of the image is proportional to the ratio of the aperture to the focal length, i.e. the relative aperture. (This explains the gigantic focal lengths in vogue before the discovery of achromatism.)

Examples:

Newton failed to perceive the existence of media of different dispersive powers required by achromatism; consequently he constructed large reflectors instead of refractors. James Gregory and Leonhard Euler arrived at the correct view from a false conception of the achromatism of the eye; this was determined by Chester More Hall in 1728, Klingenstierna in 1754 and by Dollond in 1757, who constructed the celebrated achromatic telescopes. (See telescope.)

Glass with weaker dispersive power (greater $$v$$) is named crown glass; that with greater dispersive power, flint glass. For the construction of an achromatic collective lens ($$f$$ positive) it follows, by means of equation (4), that a collective lens I. of crown glass and a dispersive lens II. of flint glass must be chosen; the latter, although the weaker, corrects the other chromatically by its greater dispersive power. For an achromatic dispersive lens the converse must be adopted. This is, at the present day, the ordinary type, e.g., of telescope objective; the values of the four radii must satisfy the equations (2) and (4). Two other conditions may also be postulated: one is always the elimination of the aberration on the axis; the second either the Herschel or Fraunhofer Condition, the latter being the best vide supra, Monochromatic Aberration). In practice, however, it is often more useful to avoid the second condition by making the lenses have contact, i.e. equal radii. According to P. Rudolph (Eder's Jahrb. f. Photog., 1891, 5, p. 225; 1893, 7, p. 221), cemented objectives of thin lenses permit the elimination of spherical aberration on the axis, if, as above, the collective lens has a smaller refractive index; on the other hand, they permit the elimination of astigmatism and curvature of the field, if the collective lens has a greater refractive index (this follows from the Petzval equation; see L. Seidel, Astr. Nachr., 1856, p. 289). Should the cemented system be positive, then the more powerful lens must be positive; and, according to (4), to the greater power belongs the weaker dispersive power (greater $$v$$), that is to say, crown glass; consequently the crown glass must have the greater refractive index for astigmatic and plane images. In all earlier kinds of glass, however, the dispersive power increased with the refractive index; that is, $$v$$ decreased as $$n$$ increased; but some of the Jena glasses by E. Abbe and O. Schott were crown glasses of high refractive index, and achromatic systems from such crown glasses, with flint glasses of lower refractive index, are called the new achromats, and were employed by P. Rudolph in the first anastigmats (photographic objectives).

Instead of making $$df$$ vanish, a certain value can be assigned to it which will produce, by the addition of the two lenses, any desired chromatic deviation, e.g. sufficient to eliminate one present in other parts of the system. If the lenses I. and II. be cemented and have the same refractive index for one color, then its effect for that one color is that of a lens of one piece; by such decomposition of a lens it can be made chromatic or achromatic at will, without altering its spherical effect. If its chromatic effect ($$df/f$$) be greater than that of the same lens, this being made of the more dispersive of the two glasses employed, it is termed hyper-chromatic.

For two thin lenses separated by a distance $$D$$ the condition for achromatism is $$D=v_1f_1+v_2f_2$$; if $$v_1=v_2$$ (e.g. if the lenses be made of the same glass), this reduces to $$D=(f_1+f_2)/2$$, known as the condition for oculars.

If a constant of reproduction, for instance the focal length, be made equal for two colors, then it is not the same for other colors, if two different glasses are employed. For example, the condition for achromatism (4) for two thin lenses in contact is fulfilled in only one part of the spectrum, since $$dn_2/dn_1$$ varies within the spectrum. This fact was first ascertained by J. Fraunhofer, who defined the colors by means of the dark lines in the solar spectrum; and showed that the ratio of the dispersion of two glasses varied about 20% from the red to the violet (the variation for glass and water is about 50%). If, therefore, for two colors, a and b, $$f_a=f_b=f$$, then for a third color, c, the focal length is different; that is, if c lies between a and b, then $$f_c<f$$, and vice versa; these algebraic results follow from the fact that towards the red the dispersion of the positive crown glass preponderates, towards the violet that of the negative flint. These chromatic errors of systems, which are achromatic for two colors, are called the secondary spectrum, and depend upon the aperture and focal length in the same manner as the primary chromatic errors do.

In fig. 6, taken from M. von Rohr's Theorie und Geschichte des photographischen Objectivs, the abscissae are focal lengths, and the ordinates wavelengths. The Fraunhofer lines used are shown in adjacent table.

The focal lengths are made equal for the lines C and F. In the neighborhood of 550 nm the tangent to the curve is parallel to the axis of wavelengths; and the focal length varies least over a fairly large range of color, therefore in this neighborhood the color union is at its best. Moreover, this region of the spectrum is that which appears brightest to the human eye, and consequently this curve of the secondary on spectrum, obtained by making $$f_C=f_F$$, is, according to the experiments of Sir G. G. Stokes (Proc. Roy. Soc., 1878), the most suitable for visual instruments (optical achromatism,). In a similar manner, for systems used in photography, the vertex of the color curve must be placed in the position of the maximum sensibility of the plates; this is generally supposed to be at G'; and to accomplish this the F and violet mercury lines are united. This artifice is specially adopted in objectives for astronomical photography (pure actinic achromatism). For ordinary photography, however, there is this disadvantage: the image on the focusing-screen and the correct adjustment of the photographic sensitive plate are not in register; in astronomical photography this difference is constant, but in other kinds it depends on the distance of the objects. On this account the lines D and G' are united for ordinary photographic objectives; the optical as well as the actinic image is chromatically inferior, but both lie in the same place; and consequently the best correction lies in F (this is known as the actinic correction or freedom from chemical focus).

Should there be in two lenses in contact the same focal lengths for three colours a, b, and c, i.e. $$f_a = f_b = f_c = f$$, then the relative partial dispersion $$(n_c - n_b)(n_a - n_b)$$ must be equal for the two kinds of glass employed. This follows by considering equation (4) for the two pairs of colors ac and bc. Until recently no glasses were known with a proportional degree of absorption; but R. Blair (Trans. Edin. Soc., 1791, 3, p. 3), P. Barlow, and F. S. Archer overcame the difficulty by constructing fluid lenses between glass walls. Fraunhofer prepared glasses which reduced the secondary spectrum; but permanent success was only assured on the introduction of the Jena glasses by E. Abbe and O. Schott. In using glasses not having proportional dispersion, the deviation of a third colour can be eliminated by two lenses, if an interval be allowed between them; or by three lenses in contact, which may not all consist of the old glasses. In uniting three colors an achromatism of a higher order is derived; there is yet a residual tertiary spectrum, but it can always be neglected.

The Gaussian theory is only an approximation; monochromatic or spherical aberrations still occur, which will be different for different colors; and should they be compensated for one color, the image of another color would prove disturbing. The most important is the chromatic difference of aberration of the axis point, which is still present to disturb the image, after par-axial rays of different colors are united by an appropriate combination of glasses. If a collective system be corrected for the axis point for a definite wavelength, then, on account of the greater dispersion in the negative components — the flint glasses, — overcorrection will arise for the shorter wavelengths (this being the error of the negative components), and under-correction for the longer wavelengths (the error of crown glass lenses preponderating in the red). This error was treated by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, and, in special detail, by C. F. Gauss. It increases rapidly with the aperture, and is more important with medium apertures than the secondary spectrum of par-axial rays; consequently, spherical aberration must be eliminated for two colors, and if this be impossible, then it must be eliminated for those particular wavelengths which are most effectual for the instrument in question (a graphical representation of this error is given in M. von Rohr, Theorie und Geschichte des photographischen Objectivs).

The condition for the reproduction of a surface element in the place of a sharply reproduced point — the constant of the sine relationship must also be fulfilled with large apertures for several colors. E. Abbe succeeded in computing microscope objectives free from error of the axis point and satisfying the sine condition for several colors, which therefore, according to his definition, were aplanatic for several colors; such systems he termed apochromatic. While, however, the magnification of the individual zones is the same, it is not the same for red as for blue; and there is a chromatic difference of magnification. This is produced in the same amount, but in the opposite sense, by the oculars, which Abbe used with these objectives (compensating oculars), so that it is eliminated in the image of the whole microscope. The best telescope objectives, and photographic objectives intended for three-color work, are also apochromatic, even if they do not possess quite the same quality of correction as microscope objectives do. The chromatic differences of other errors of reproduction seldom have practical importance.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Optical aberration