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.
122 CHAPTER 4<br />
not beyond doubt, Kepler preferred his own data over Witelo’s because it<br />
was based on “regularity <strong>and</strong> order”. In the final propositions of this section<br />
<strong>and</strong> the remaining sections of the chapter, Kepler was now able to dealt with<br />
proper subject of the chapter: the quantitative treatment of atmospheric<br />
refraction.<br />
Kepler’s search for a ‘measure’ refraction clearly reveals the idiosyncrasies<br />
of his thinking. He laboriously reported on his persistent efforts to find a<br />
satisfactory law, <strong>and</strong> although – so we can see with hindsight – he came<br />
tantalizingly close he did not succeed. The successive stages of his attack<br />
display his ever inventive mathematical reasoning, mixed with those typical<br />
Renaissance conceptions of his that make it hard for a modern reader to<br />
distinguish mathematics <strong>and</strong> physical ideas. In the light of ensuing<br />
developments in seventeenth-century optics, the final stage of Kepler’s<br />
struggle with refraction is the most interesting. Here he took his conception<br />
of the nature of light into account in order to find a law of refraction. In a<br />
kind of microphysical, though far from corpuscular, analysis he considered<br />
the interaction of a surface of light <strong>and</strong> the refracting medium. At this stage<br />
he move farthest away from traditional approaches. Although the resulting<br />
‘rule’ was phrased in terms of rays, he had taken the true nature of light into<br />
account while analyzing the interaction of rays <strong>and</strong> (refracting) media. As I<br />
see it, this was possible because of his realist view of mathematical<br />
description. With Kepler, the mathematics of light propagation necessarily<br />
reflected the nature of light.<br />
One may argue that mathematics took the lead in his thinking. Kepler<br />
more or less reduced light to a mathematical entity, a two-dimensional<br />
surface. The geometry of refraction was rather autonomous in his final<br />
attempt to derive a law. 63 Yet, pure formalisms would have been meaningless<br />
for him. Kepler maintained geometrical optics as a mathematical theory<br />
explaining the behavior of light rays. He adopted many concepts of<br />
perspectivist theories of light <strong>and</strong> refraction, but he applied them in a radical<br />
<strong>and</strong> sometimes radically different way. On the level of methodology, all<br />
relevant components – physics, mathematics, observation – had been<br />
present in perspectivist optics, but Kepler sought a closer connection<br />
between them <strong>and</strong> often used these means in a much stricter way. He<br />
repeatedly allowed Witelo’s data to refute the outcome of his trials. Kepler’s<br />
wanted to establish a closer tie between the nature of light <strong>and</strong> the laws of<br />
optics <strong>and</strong> derive ‘measure’ from ‘cause’. He openly acknowledged that he<br />
could not realize this ideal. He resorted to a freer mode of reasoning<br />
because, as I see it, he was far too creative a thinker to stick too rigidly to his<br />
ideals.<br />
63 See for example: Buchdahl, “Methodological aspects”, 291.