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.
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]