Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
THE 'PROJET' OF 1672 119<br />
matter. In this way he followed up on the mechanical analogies employed in<br />
perspectivist causal accounts, but he did not do so without appropriating that<br />
line of reasoning to his own means. “For it may be permissible here for me<br />
to use the words of the optical writers in a sense contrary to their own<br />
opinion, <strong>and</strong> carry them over into a better one.” 50 Kepler went on to develop<br />
the analysis of a ball spun into water by distinguishing between the dynamics<br />
of the parallel <strong>and</strong> perpendicular components of its motion, whereby light is<br />
rarified in the former direction <strong>and</strong> merely transported in the latter direction.<br />
He then proceeded with a short discussion of the underlying physics, to wit<br />
the statics of a balance. In this way Kepler transformed the mechanical<br />
analogies employed by his perspectivist forebears to illuminate the<br />
mathematics of refraction into a physical foundation of the analysis of<br />
refraction. The account in chapter 1 only yielded a qualitative underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
of refraction, <strong>and</strong> only partial for that matter, for Kepler did not discuss the<br />
passage of light into a rarer medium.<br />
At the opening of chapter 4, ‘De Refractionum Mensura’, Kepler still<br />
lacked an exact law of refraction. He needed this ‘measure’ in the first place<br />
for his account of the dioptrics of the eye in the next chapter (see above<br />
section 2.1.1.), but in the end principally for his account of atmospheric<br />
refraction later in Paralipomena. After all, it was a treatise in the optical part of<br />
astronomy for which the laws of optics were instrumental. Nevertheless my<br />
discussion will be confined to the optics per se: Kepler’s tour the force to<br />
tackle the mathematics of refraction.<br />
Kepler began with a review of the received opinions regarding the<br />
measure of refraction. In this section, he tied in with the traditional approach<br />
of considering the physical properties of light rays <strong>and</strong> their components.<br />
After negating several opinions, Kepler laid down the - in his view - generally<br />
established underst<strong>and</strong>ing: first, that the density of the refracting medium is<br />
the cause of refraction <strong>and</strong>, second, the angle of incidence contributes to its<br />
cause. The question therefor was how these two aspects are connected.<br />
Kepler ran through several options as they had been set forth, rejecting each<br />
as insufficient. Next, he contemplated how the two said aspects could<br />
correctly be combined. 51 Kepler proceeded to represent these conditions<br />
geometrically (Figure 36). BC is the refracting surface of a medium BCED <strong>and</strong><br />
AB, AG, AF are incident rays. Kepler now extended the medium to DEKL,<br />
thus representing the greater density of its surface. He then constructed a<br />
refracted ray FQ by drawing HN perpendicular to the lower surface <strong>and</strong><br />
joining N at the imaginary bottom with F. 52 Comparing the results of this<br />
method with Witelo’s table, Kepler simply concluded that it was refuted by<br />
50<br />
Kepler, Paralipomena, 16 (KGW2, 27). “Liceat enim hîc mihi verba Opticorum contra mentem ipsorum<br />
usurpare, et in meliorem sensum traducere.”<br />
51<br />
Kepler, Paralipomena, 85-87 (KGW2, 85-86)<br />
52<br />
This is equivalent with sini : tanr = constant. Lohne, “Kepler und Harriot”, 197. Compare Buchdahl,<br />
“Methodological aspects”, 283.