27.06.2013 Views

Lenses and Waves

Lenses and Waves

Lenses and Waves

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

138 CHAPTER 4<br />

refraction. 112 For reflection, he<br />

considered BD – a line of light in the<br />

most realist sense of the word –<br />

colliding obliquely with a reflecting<br />

surface EF (Figure 42). He argued<br />

that, after B hits the surface, this end<br />

of the line of light rebounds while end<br />

D continues its way, resulting in the<br />

rotation of BD around its center Z.<br />

This rotation lasts until D hits the<br />

surface <strong>and</strong> the line of light is in position . The line of light then continues<br />

towards . From the symmetry of the situation the equivalence of the<br />

angles of incidence <strong>and</strong> reflection follows directly.<br />

To substantiate his claim, Barrow invoked a general ‘law’ of motion:<br />

“… that it is constantly found in nature, when a straight movement degenerates into a<br />

circular one, that it is the extreme parts of the moving objects that direct <strong>and</strong> control all<br />

motion.” 113<br />

He applied the same law to derive<br />

the sine law (Figure 43). On<br />

entering the more resisting<br />

medium below EF, point B of the<br />

line of light BD will be slowed<br />

down while D continues with the<br />

original speed. As a consequence<br />

DB will be rotated around a point<br />

Z until D also reaches the ‘denser’<br />

medium. Then the line of light <br />

will continue along a straight path.<br />

Now, the proportion between ZD<br />

<strong>and</strong> ZB is constant for any angle<br />

of incidence <strong>and</strong> depends upon<br />

the particular difference of the<br />

densities. From this it easily<br />

follows that for i =GBM <strong>and</strong><br />

r =N, sin i : sin r = ZD : ZB. 114 After thus explaining refraction into a rarer<br />

medium <strong>and</strong> total reflection, Barrow was ready to elaborate the ‘Optic<br />

Science’ of his lectures in the common manner:<br />

“…considering rays as one-dimensional (seeing that the other dimensions, in which<br />

physicists delight, have no importance for the calculations here undertaken).” 115<br />

Figure 42 Barrow’s explanation of reflection.<br />

Figure 43 Explanation of refraction.<br />

112 Like Maignan in his Perspectiva Horaria (1648), Barrow added a derivation of the law of reflection which<br />

Hobbes had not provided. See Shapiro, “Kinematic optics”, 175-178.<br />

113 Barrow, Lectiones, [28].<br />

114 Barrow, Lectiones, [29-31]<br />

115 Barrow, Lectiones, [39-41]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!