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.
30 CHAPTER 2<br />
mathematical account of such an important <strong>and</strong> widespread device existed.<br />
We can underst<strong>and</strong> his surprise, for spectacles had already been invented<br />
around 1300. 66 A brief account by Francesco Maurolyco, that dated back to<br />
around 1521, was not to be published before 1611, in Diaphaneon seu<br />
transparentium libellus. Kepler would not have found much in it to his liking,<br />
for it was a qualitative theory based on a somewhat confusing variant of the<br />
perspectivist theory of vision <strong>and</strong> refraction. 67 Kepler knew that Della Porta<br />
had written a study of refraction, but he had not been able to lay h<strong>and</strong>s on<br />
De refractione (1593). He dismissed what Della Porta had written in Magia<br />
naturalis, namely that spectacles correct vision because they magnify images.<br />
Kepler elaborated his own account of lenses, dedicating it in Paralipomena to<br />
his patron Ludwig von Dietrichstein, whom he said had kept him busy for<br />
three years with the question of the secret of spectacles. 68 Kepler explained<br />
the beneficial effects of spectacles as follows. Myopic <strong>and</strong> presbyotic vision<br />
occurs when rays are not brought to focus on the retina but in front of it or<br />
beyond. He gave a short, qualitative discussion of the effect of lenses on a<br />
bundle of parallel rays coming from a distant point. Convex <strong>and</strong> concave<br />
lenses – for myopics <strong>and</strong> presbyotics respectively – move the focus of rays to<br />
the retina. Some magnification may occur, but this is not the reason why<br />
spectacle lenses correct vision.<br />
With the introduction of the telescope in astronomy, the qualitative<br />
account of single lenses in Paralipomena did not suffice any more. In Dioptrice,<br />
Kepler extended his theory of image formation to a quantitative analysis of<br />
the properties of lenses <strong>and</strong> their configurations. 69 As a matter of fact, he was<br />
the one to coin the term ‘dioptrics’. 70 Compared to Huygens’ Tractatus,<br />
Kepler’s dioptrical theory was of more limited scope. His goal was to explain<br />
the formation of images by a telescope. He therefore restricted his theory to<br />
a few types of lenses <strong>and</strong> mainly confined himself to object points at infinite<br />
distance when incident rays are parallel. The basic concept was the focus of a<br />
lens, the point where parallel rays intersect after refraction. Kepler could not<br />
determine the focal distance with the exactness we have seen with Huygens.<br />
He could not, for example, determine the exact route of a ray through the<br />
refractions at both surfaces of a lens. The main obstacle in the way of a more<br />
extensive treatment was the fact that Kepler did not know the exact law of<br />
refraction. In Dioptrice, he used an approximation that was valid only for<br />
angles of incidence below 30º, <strong>and</strong> that, even so, applied solely to glass.<br />
According to this rule the angle of deviation is one third of the angle of<br />
66<br />
Rosen, “The invention of eyeglasses”, 13-46.<br />
67<br />
Lindberg, “Optics in 16th century Italy”136-141. Maurolyco had preceded Kepler in his analysis of the<br />
pinhole image: Lindberg, “Optics in 16th century Italy”, 132-135; Lindberg, “Laying the foundations”.<br />
68<br />
Kepler, Paralipomena, 200-202 (KGW2, 181-183).<br />
69<br />
Malet, “Kepler <strong>and</strong> the telescope” offers a detailed discussion of Dioptrice, without however presenting it<br />
as a part of the ‘optical part of astronomy’.<br />
70<br />
Kepler, Dioptrice, dedication (KGW4, 331).