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 131<br />
the first assumption, he stated an exact relationship between the medium <strong>and</strong><br />
the length of a ray. Combined with the second assumption – which was not<br />
new – the sine law could be derived. Mathematically speaking, the proof – as<br />
Newton later phrased it – was not inelegant. It was fairly undisputed in the<br />
seventeenth century <strong>and</strong> the starting point for much optical investigations. 82<br />
Descartes’ first assumption was more than a purely mathematical<br />
assumption, which brings us to the second level of inference that holds the<br />
physical properties of rays. The physics of rays had been central in<br />
perspectivist optics, but the content of Descartes’ assumptions was<br />
innovative. According to Sabra <strong>and</strong> Schuster, stating a positive dependence<br />
of the motion of light on the density of the medium, irrespective of the<br />
direction of propagation, made up the decisive break with tradition. 83<br />
Descartes may have drawn inspiration for this from his reading of<br />
Paralipomena (which he did not acknowledge at all in La Dioptrique). In<br />
proposition XX of chapter 1 <strong>and</strong> the sequel section of chapter 4, Kepler also<br />
associated the propagation of a ray with the medium. Descartes may have<br />
read Kepler’s diagrams physically, so that the length of the rays represent the<br />
action of light as affected by the media. 84 Descartes’ diagram represented the<br />
actions involved when a ray enters a refracting medium <strong>and</strong> served to justify<br />
his assumptions. He did so by drawing an analogy between a refracted ray<br />
<strong>and</strong> a tennis ball struck through a frail canvas by the man in the diagram<br />
(Figure 40).<br />
As we have seen, these mechanical analogies had a long history in optics<br />
with a direct line from Alhacen to Kepler <strong>and</strong>, now, Descartes. The<br />
mechanical analogies had a different meaning for Descartes than for his<br />
perspectivist forebears. To an Alhacen the motions of bodies compared to<br />
light only with respect to its propagation, not its essence. According to<br />
Descartes light was essentially corpuscular. He made clear that they went<br />
further than a mere analogy:<br />
“… when [rays] meet certain other bodies they are liable to be deflected by them, or<br />
weakened, in the same way as the movement of a ball or a rock thrown in the air is<br />
deflected by those bodies it encounters. For it is quite easy to believe that the action or<br />
the inclination to move which I have said must be taken for light, must follow in this<br />
the same laws as does movement.” 85<br />
However, Descartes took care not to transgress the conceptual <strong>and</strong><br />
methodological boundaries of perspectiva openly. He presented his account<br />
82<br />
Huygens’ case is discussed below in section 4.2.1., Newton in section 5.2.2. of the next chapter. This<br />
theme is leading in Dijksterhuis, “Once Snel breaks down”. Newton’s view is cited below on page 133,<br />
footnote 98.<br />
83<br />
Sabra, Theories, 97-107; Schuster, Descartes, 333-334.<br />
84<br />
Schuster, “Descartes opticien”, 279-285; Schuster, Descartes, 334-336.<br />
85<br />
Descartes, AT6, 88-89. “mais, lors qu’ils rencontrent quelques autres cors, ils sont sujets a estre<br />
détournés par eux, ou amortis, en mesme façon que l’est le mouvement d’une balle, ou d’une pierre iettée<br />
dans l’air, par ceux qu’elle rencontre. Car il est bien aysé a croire que l’action ou inclination a se mouvoir,<br />
que j’ay dit devoir estre prise pour la lumiere, doit suivre en cecy les mesmes loys que le mouvement.”<br />
(Translation based on Olscamp)