<Emphasis Type="Italic">Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the</Emphasis> Principia

The first proposition of the Principia records two fundamental properties of an orbital motion: the Fixed Plane Property (that the orbit lies in a fixed plane) and the Area Property (that the radius sweeps out equal areas in equal times). Taking at the start the traditional view, that by an orbital motion Newton means a centripetal motion – this is a motion ``continually deflected from the tangent toward a fixed center' – we describe two serious flaws in the Principia's argument for Proposition 1, an argument based on a polygonal impulse approximation. First, the persuasiveness of the argument depends crucially on the validity of the Impulse Assumption: that every centripetal motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Yet Newton tacitly takes the Impulse Assumption for granted. The resulting gap in the argument for Proposition 1 is serious, for only a nontrivial analysis, involving the careful estimation of accumulating local errors, verifies the Impulse Assumption. Second, Newton's polygonal approximation scheme has an inherent and ultimately fatal disability: it does not establish nor can it be adapted to establish the Fixed Plane Property. Taking then a different view of what Newton means by an orbital motion – namely that an orbital motion is by definition a limit of polygonal impulse motions – we show in this case that polygonal approximation can be used to establish both the fixed plane and area properties without too much trouble, but that Newton's own argument still has flaws. Moreover, a crucial question, haunted by error accumulation and planarity problems, now arises: How plentiful are these differently defined orbital motions? Returning to the traditional view, that Newton's orbital motions are by definition centripetal motions, we go on to give three proofs of the Area Property which Newton ``could have given' – two using polygonal approximation and a third using curvature – as well as a proof of the Fixed Plane Property which he ``almost could have given.' (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith     

Proposition 10, Book 2, in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Principia</Emphasis>, revisited

In Proposition 10, Book 2 of the Principia, Newton applied his geometrical calculus and power series expansion to calculate motion in a resistive medium under the action of gravity. In the first edition of the Principia, however, he made an error in his treatment which lead to a faulty solution that was noticed by Johann Bernoulli and communicated to him while the second edition was already at the printer. This episode has been discussed in the past, and the source of Newton’s initial error, which Bernoulli was unable to find, has been clarified by Lagrange and is reviewed here. But there are also problems in Newton’s corrected version in the second edition of the Principia that have been ignored in the past, which are discussed in detail here.     

Borelli’s edition of books V–VII of Apollonius’s Conics,and Lemma 12 in Newton’s Principia

To solve the direct problem of central forces when the trajectory is an ellipse and the force is directed to its centre, Newton made use of the famous Lemma 12 (Principia, I, sect. II) that was later recognized equivalent to proposition 31 of book VII of Apollonius’s Conics. In this paper, in which we look for Newton’s possible sources for Lemma 12, we compare Apollonius’s original proof, as edited by Borelli, with those of other authors, including that given by Newton himself. Moreover, after having retraced its editorial history, we evaluate the dissemination of Borelli's edition of books V-VII of Apollonius’s Conics before the printing of the Principia.

     

The early application of the calculus to the inverse square force problem

The translation of Newton’s geometrical Propositions in the Principia into the language of the differential calculus in the form developed by Leibniz and his followers has been the subject of many scholarly articles and books. One of the most vexing problems in this translation concerns the transition from the discrete polygonal orbits and force impulses in Prop. 1 to the continuous orbits and forces in Prop. 6. Newton justified this transition by lemma 1 on prime and ultimate ratios which was a concrete formulation of a limit, but it took another century before this concept was established on a rigorous mathematical basis. This difficulty was mirrored in the newly developed calculus which dealt with differentials that vanish in this limit, and therefore were considered to be fictional quantities by some mathematicians. Despite these problems, early practitioners of the differential calculus like Jacob Hermann, Pierre Varignon, and Johann Bernoulli succeeded without apparent difficulties in applying the differential calculus to the solution of the fundamental problem of orbital motion under the action of inverse square central forces. By following their calculations and describing some essential details that have been ignored in the past, I clarify the reason why the lack of rigor in establishing the continuum limit was not a practical problem.     

From centripetal forces to conic orbits: a path through the early sections of Newton’s Principia

In this study, we test the security of a crucial plank in the Principia’s mathematical foundation, namely Newton’s path leading to his solution of the famous Inverse Kepler Problem: a body attracted toward an immovable center by a centripetal force inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center must move on a conic having a focus in that center. This path begins with his definitions of centripetal and motive force, moves through the second law of motion, then traverses Propositions I, II, and VI, before coming to an end with Propositions XI, XII, XIII and this trio’s first corollary. To test the security of this path, we answer the following questions. How far is Newton’s path from being truly rigorous? What would it take to clarify his ambiguous definitions and laws, supply missing details, and close logical gaps? In short, what would it take to make Newton’s route to the Inverse Kepler Problem completely convincing? The answer is very surprising: it takes far less than one might have expected, given that Newton carved this path in 1687.     

Newton's early computational method for dynamics

On December 13, 1679Newton sent a letter toHooke on orbital motion for central forces, which contains a drawing showing an orbit for a constant value of the force. This letter is of great importance, because it reveals the state ofNewton's development of dynamics at that time. Since the first publication of this letter in 1929,Newton's method of constructing this orbit has remained a puzzle particularly because he apparently made a considerable error in the angle between successive apogees of this orbit. In fact, it is shown here thatNewton's implicitcomputation of this orbit is quite good, and that the error in the angle is due mainly toan error of drawing in joining two segments of the oribit, whichNewton related by areflection symmetry. In addition, in the letterNewton describes quite correctly the geometrical nature of orbits under the action of central forces (accelerations) which increase with decreasing distance from the center. An iterative computational method to evaluate orbits for central forces is described, which is based onNewton's mathematical development of the concept of curvature started in 1664. This method accounts very well for the orbit obtained byNewton for a constant central force, and it gives convergent results even for forces which diverge at the center, which are discussed correctly inNewton's letterwithout usingKepler's law of areas.Newton found the relation of this law to general central forces only after his correspondence withHooke. The curvature method leads to an equation of motion whichNewton could have solvedanalytically to find that motion on a conic section with a radial force directed towards a focus implies an inverse square force, and that motion on a logarithmic spiral implies an inverse cube force.     

Visiting Newton's atelier before the Principia, 1679–1684

The worksheets that presumably contained Newton's early development of the fundamental concepts in his Principia have been lost. A plausible reconstruction of this development is presented based on Newton's exchange of letters with Robert Hooke in 1679, with Edmund Halley in 1686, and on some clues in the diagram associated with Proposition 1 in Book 1 of the Principia that have been ignored in the past. A graphical construction associated with this proposition leads to a rapidly convergent method to obtain orbits for central forces, which elucidates how Newton may have have been led to formulate some of his most fundamental propositions in the Principia.     

Is Newton a ‘radical empiricist’ about method?

Recently, some Newton scholars have argued that Newton is an empiricist about metaphysics—that ideally, he wants to let advances in physical theory resolve either some or all metaphysical issues. But while proponents of this interpretation are using ‘metaphysics’ in a very broad sense, to include the ‘principles that enable our knowledge of natural phenomena’, attention has thus far been focused on Newton’s approach to ontological, not epistemological or methodological, issues. In this essay, I therefore consider whether Newton wants to let physical theory bear on the very ‘principles that enable our knowledge’. By examining two kinds of argument in the Principia, I contend that Newton can be considered a methodological empiricist in a substantial respect. I also argue, however, that he cannot be a ‘radical empiricist’—that he does not and cannot convert all methodological issues into empirical issues.     

The Newtonian Myth

I examine Popper’s claims about Newton’s use of induction in Principia with the actual contents of Principia and draw two conclusions. Firstly, in common with most other philosophers of his generation, it appears that Popper had very little acquaintance with the contents and methodological complexities of Principia beyond what was in the famous General Scholium. Secondly Popper’s ideas about induction were less sophisticated than those of Newton, who recognised that it did not provide logical proofs of the results obtained using it, because of the possibilities of later, contrary evidence. I also trace the historical background to commonplace misconceptions about Newton’s method.     

Proposition II (Book I) of Newton’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Principia</Emphasis>

After preparing the way with comments on evanescent quantities and then Newton’s interpretation of his second law, this study of Proposition II (Book I)— Proposition II Every body that moves in some curved line described in a plane and, by a radius drawn to a point, either unmoving or moving uniformly forward with a rectilinear motion, describes areas around that point proportional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force tending toward that same point. —asks and answers the following questions: When does a version of Proposition II first appear in Newton’s work? What revisions bring that initial version to the final form in the 1726 Principia? What, exactly, does this proposition assert? In particular, what does Newton mean by the motion of a body “urged by a centripetal force”? Does it assert a true mathematical claim? If not, what revision makes it true? Does the demonstration of Proposition II persuade? Is it as convincing, for example, as the most convincing arguments of the Principia? If not, what revisions would make the demonstration more persuasive? What is the importance of Proposition II, to the physics of Book III and the mathematics of Book I?     

Leonhard Euler's ‘anti-Newtonian’ theory of light

Leonhard Euler was the leading eighteenth-century critic of Isaac Newton's projectile theory of light. Euler's main criticisms of Newton's views are surveyed, and also his alternative account according to which light is a wave motion propagated through the aether. Important changes are identified as having occurred between 1744 and 1746 in Euler's thinking about the way in which a wave such as he supposed light to be is propagated through a medium. Paradoxically, in view of Euler's overtly anti-Newtonian stand, these amount to Euler abandoning his early, Malebranchian notions about the physical basis of wave propagation, in favour of the ideas set out by Newton in Book II of his Principia.     

The transcendental method from Newton to Kant

Kant’s transcendental method, as applied to natural philosophy, considers the laws of physics as conditions of the possibility of experience. A more modest transcendental project is to show how the laws of motion explicate the concepts of motion, force, and causal interaction, as conditions of the possibility of an objective account of nature. This paper argues that such a project is central to the natural philosophy of Newton, and explains some central aspects of the development of his thinking as he wrote the Principia. One guiding scientific aim was the dynamical analysis of any system of interacting bodies, and in particular our solar system; the transcendental question was, what are the conceptual prerequisites for such an analysis? More specifically, what are the conditions for determining “true motions” within such a system—for posing the question of “the frame of the system of the world” as an empirical question? A study of the development of Newton’s approach to these questions reveals surprising connections with his developing conceptions of force, causality, and the relativity of motion. It also illuminates the comparison between his use of the transcendental method and that of Euler and Kant.     

Newton's Contribution to the Science of Heat

The contents of Scala Graduum Caloris are described, supplemented by unpublished material. Both temperature measurements by his linseed oil thermometer and those based upon his law of cooling are shown to be reasonably accurate to 300°C, but above that value they are much too low. The apparent agreement and the deviation are explained by the differences between the assumptions that Newton made in deriving his law of cooling and the conditions in which he used it. Newton's attempts to link terrestrial and celestial science in applications in the Principia are shown to fail from his confounding the concepts of temperature, heat and radiant intensity and his ignorance of most factors affecting the temperature rise of irradiated materials. Other comments on varied aspects of heat, mainly published in the Queries, are set out and analysed. His originality is assessed.     

Euler’s beta integral in Pietro Mengoli’s works

Beta integrals for several non-integer values of the exponents were calculated by Leonhard Euler in 1730, when he was trying to find the general term for the factorial function by means of an algebraic expression. Nevertheless, 70 years before, Pietro Mengoli (1626–1686) had computed such integrals for natural and half-integer exponents in his Geometriae Speciosae Elementa (1659) and Circolo(1672) and displayed the results in triangular tables. In particular, his new arithmetic–algebraic method allowed him to compute the quadrature of the circle. The aim of this article is to show how Mengoli calculated the values of these integrals as well as how he analysed the relation between these values and the exponents inside the integrals. This analysis provides new insights into Mengoli’s view of his algorithmic computation of quadratures.     

Polynomials and equations in arabic algebra

It is shown in this article that the two sides of an equation in the medieval Arabic algebra are aggregations of the algebraic “numbers” (powers) with no operations present. Unlike an expression such as our 3x + 4, the Arabic polynomial “three things and four dirhams” is merely a collection of seven objects of two different types. Ideally, the two sides of an equation were polynomials so the Arabic algebraists preferred to work out all operations of the enunciation to a problem before stating an equation. Some difficult problems which involve square roots and divisions cannot be handled nicely by this basic method, so we do find square roots of polynomials and expressions of the form “A divided by B” in some equations. But rather than initiate a reconsideration of the notion of equation, these developments were used only for particularly complex problems. Also, the algebraic notation practiced in the Maghreb in the later middle ages was developed with the “aggregations” interpretation in mind, so it had no noticeable impact on the concept of polynomial. Arabic algebraists continued to solve problems by working operations before setting up an equation to the end of the medieval period. I thank Mahdi Abdeljaouad, who provided comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Haitham Alkhateeb, for his help with some of the translations. Notes on references: When page numbers are separated by a “ / ”, the first number is to the Arabic text, and the second to the translation. Also, a semicolon separates page number from line number. Example: [Al-Khwārizmī, 1831, 31;6/43] refers to page 31 line 6 of the Arabic text, and page 43 of the translation.     

Varignon ou la théorie du mouvement des projectiles ‘comprise en une Proposition générale

Cet article a pour objet de montrer la nouveauté du traitement varignonien du mouvement des projectiles dans les milieux résistants par rapport au traitement de ce problème présenté entre autres par Newton dans les Principia. Aussi, après avoir analysé cursivement différentes Propositions du Livre II des Principia, nous étudierons plus spécialement, dans les Mémoires présentés par Varignon à l'Académie Royale des Sciences entre 1707 et 1711, la mise en place de l'expression d'une ‘Proposition générale’. Nous montrerons ensuite sur quelques cas particuliers en quel sens on peut dire que l'étude du mouvement des projectiles dans les milieux résistants se réduit alors, pour l'essentiel, à de simples questions d'intégration et de différentiation.