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.
50 CHAPTER 2<br />
most part derived from Huygens’ dioptrical theories, <strong>and</strong> I will not discuss<br />
them in further detail. 164<br />
Huygens’ position<br />
Picard’s dioptrical fragments bring us back to Huygens. What had he been<br />
doing in the meantime? In Systema saturnium he had alluded to an elaborate<br />
theory of dioptrics, which we know he possessed indeed. Yet, despite<br />
ongoing requests to publish it, he had kept it to himself. It may be clear by<br />
now that Tractatus is a unique work in the development of seventeenthcentury<br />
dioptrics. Huygens was the first <strong>and</strong> only man to follow the lead of<br />
Dioptrice. Like Kepler, he combined the two things necessary to develop a<br />
theory of the telescope: mathematical proficiency <strong>and</strong> an orientation on the<br />
instrument. Unlike Kepler, he had the exact law of refraction <strong>and</strong> thus he<br />
could rigorously develop an exact theory of the telescope.<br />
But did Huygens really follow Kepler? Did he want to underst<strong>and</strong> the<br />
telescope in view of its use in astronomy? Tractatus came into being well<br />
before Huygens commenced his practical activities of telescope making <strong>and</strong><br />
astronomical observation (discussed in the next chapter). Unlike Flamsteed<br />
<strong>and</strong> Picard, he did not seek answers to questions that had arisen in practice.<br />
Nevertheless, his orientation on the telescope is clear. He passed by all those<br />
sophisticated problems not relevant to the underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the telescope<br />
that preoccupied mathematicians like Barrow. However, nowhere does<br />
Huygens mention Kepler as an example. It looks as if developing a theory of<br />
the telescope on the basis of the sine law was to him an interesting<br />
mathematical puzzle, maybe just to correct Descartes’ useless approach to<br />
dioptrics. The problem had not yet been solved <strong>and</strong> Huygens only too gladly<br />
seized the opportunity. Which makes his exclusive orientation on the<br />
instrument all the more interesting.<br />
The transformation of the telescope into an instrument of precision<br />
brought back an interest in the dioptrical properties of the telescope. In this<br />
regard, one might say that Kepler had prematurely raised the question after a<br />
mathematical underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the telescope. In 1611, it was a qualitative<br />
instrument <strong>and</strong> remained so for another half century. To underst<strong>and</strong> its<br />
working, a qualitative account of the effects of lenses therefore sufficed.<br />
Similarly, we can ask whether an exact theory like Huygens’ was really<br />
needed. It seems that Kepler’s or Keplerian theories satisfied the needs of<br />
men like Flamsteed <strong>and</strong> Molyneux pretty well. They lacked sufficient<br />
proficiency in mathematics to treat lenses in exact terms, but they may also<br />
have been perfectly satisfied with their approximate results.<br />
Huygens himself did not put much work in applying his theory to the<br />
questions that occupied Picard <strong>and</strong> Flamsteed. The principle of the<br />
micrometer may or may not have been the result of his theoretical<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing, in Systema saturnium he explained it only briefly. Huygens did<br />
164 Blay, “Travaux de Picard”, 340.