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.
126 CHAPTER 4<br />
It is beyond dispute that Kepler was crucial to the development of<br />
seventeenth-century optics. With his seminal work, he gave the study of<br />
optics a new start at the beginning of the seventeenth century. What his<br />
influence was exactly is harder to determine. As a result of the advent of<br />
corpuscular conceptions of nature, his explanation of the nature of light was<br />
outdated almost immediately. On the level of theories <strong>and</strong> mathematical<br />
concepts his influence is clear: his theory of image formation <strong>and</strong> of vision<br />
were the starting-point of all subsequent studies. However, his contribution<br />
was largely obscured by the uncredited adoption of his ideas by Descartes<br />
most notably. On the level of methodology the matter is less clear. Descartes<br />
called Kepler his “first teacher in Optics”, but what he had been taught he<br />
did not say. 74 He did not, for one thing, adopt Kepler’s c<strong>and</strong>or as regards the<br />
way he discovered things. Seventeenth-century savants found Kepler’s<br />
Renaissance conceptions hard to take <strong>and</strong> the odor of mysticism that<br />
surrounded him seems to have been responsible for the fact that few<br />
referred to Kepler directly. As regards the way mathematical reasoning could<br />
be applied to underst<strong>and</strong> natural phenomena, he was quickly overshadowed<br />
by Descartes <strong>and</strong> Galileo. Huygens, in particular, was silent on Kepler as<br />
regards his approach to optics.<br />
4.1.3 THE LAWS OF OPTICS IN CORPUSCULAR THINKING<br />
The new philosophies of the seventeenth century came to see light as an<br />
effect of some material action. As a consequence, the mechanical analogies<br />
used in perspectivist accounts of reflection <strong>and</strong> refraction were put in a<br />
different light. Discussions of motions <strong>and</strong> impact regarding the causes of<br />
reflection <strong>and</strong> refraction were now connected directly with the essence of<br />
light. Yet, accounting for the nature of light was not integrated with<br />
mathematical analysis of the behavior of light rays at one go. This is evident<br />
in Descartes’ account of refraction in La Dioptrique, a peculiar amalgam of<br />
perspectivist <strong>and</strong> mechanistic reasoning. In La Dioptrique Descartes made<br />
public the sine law, which he had discovered in Paris in the late 1620s during<br />
his collaborative efforts to realize non-spherical lenses (see section 3.1). How<br />
exactly he arrived at the sine law remains a subject for debate, but it is certain<br />
Descartes did not discover it along the lines of his account in La Dioptrique.<br />
Descartes’ account of refraction is difficult to comprehend in twentiethcentury<br />
parlance. A quick detour via the correspondence of Claude Mydorge,<br />
one of his Parisian collaborators, will be enlightening for modern readers. In<br />
a letter to Mersenne from around 1627, Mydorge used a rule to calculate<br />
angles of refraction, given the angles of one pair of incident <strong>and</strong> refracted<br />
rays (Figure 39). If FE-GE is the given pair, the refraction EN of HE is found<br />
in the following way. Draw a semicircle around E that cuts EF in F. Draw IF<br />
parallel to AB, <strong>and</strong> from I drop IG parallel to CE, cutting EG in G. Draw a<br />
second semicircle around E through G. Now draw HM, cutting the first<br />
74 AT 2, 86 (to Mersenne, 31 March 1638).