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 135<br />
room for doubt concerning the physical causes he assumed”, Newton wrote<br />
30 years later. 98 In view of Galileo’s science of motion it is doubtful whether<br />
the motion of a ball struck through a frail canvas is subject to the<br />
assumptions Descartes made. His explanation of refraction into a denser<br />
medium – towards the normal – was regarded most problematic. In order to<br />
account for the necessary increase of motion, he introduced the rather ad<br />
hoc assumption that the ball was struck again at the refracting surface.<br />
Besides rejecting Descartes’ theory of light on the conviction that the speed<br />
of light is finite, in the ‘Projet’ Huygens explicitly mentioned this extra<br />
assumption as one of the difficulties in Descartes’ derivation. 99<br />
Newton <strong>and</strong> Huygens wrote at a time when the law of sines as such had<br />
been generally accepted. This had taken some twenty years, during which it<br />
only slowly became widely known. Cavalieri in 1647 did not employ the law<br />
of sines <strong>and</strong> Gregory seems to have been ignorant of it as late as 1663. As we<br />
have seen in the previous chapters, Huygens was one of the very few to<br />
pursue the study of dioptrics in this period. Compared to the preceding<br />
decades, the 1660s witnessed a true upsurge of the study of light. The<br />
investigations of Grimaldi, Boyle, Hooke, Newton, Bartholinus, brought to<br />
light a collection of new properties shaking the foundations of optics.<br />
Remarkably, the final acceptance of the law of sines coincided with<br />
accusations of plagiarism directed at Descartes. In De natura lucis et proprietate<br />
(1662) Isaac Vossius said that Descartes had seen Snel’s papers <strong>and</strong><br />
concocted his own proof. We now know this charge to be undeserved but it<br />
has been adopted by many since. Descartes may have heard of Snel’s<br />
achievement through his contacts with the circle that included Golius (Snel’s<br />
successor) <strong>and</strong> Constantijn Huygens sr. around 1632, but he had found the<br />
law much earlier. Christiaan Huygens started to display doubts regarding<br />
Descartes’ originality since the early 1660s. Probably spurred by Vossius’<br />
claims, he traced <strong>and</strong> examined Snel’s papers. As late as 1693 he voiced his<br />
opinion as follows: “It is true that from all appearances these laws of<br />
refraction aren’t the invention of Mr. des Cartes, because it is certain that he<br />
has seen the manuscript book of Snel, which I also have seen.” 100 Most<br />
remarkable about this is that Huygens could have known, through his father,<br />
much earlier about Snel’s achievement. Constantijn sr. had heard of it<br />
through a letter from Golius of 1 November 1632. Apparently the topic had<br />
never entered their conversation.<br />
The slow adoption of the sine law may have been brought about by the<br />
bad odor of Descartes’ philosophy, or simply the slow diffusion of his<br />
works. Fermat was convinced of the sine law’s validity only after he found<br />
98 Newton, Optical lectures, 170-171 & 310-313.<br />
99 A similar conclusion can be drawn with respect to Descartes’ theory of hydrostatics on which his<br />
concept of ‘conatus’ was based. Shapiro, “Light, pressure”, 260-266.<br />
100 “Il est vray que ces loix de la refraction ne sont pas l’invention de Mr. des Cartes selon toutes les<br />
apparences, car il est certain qu’il a vu le livre manuscrit de Snellius, que j’ay vu aussi; ...” OC10, 405-6. See<br />
also OC13, 9 note 1.