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.     

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.     

Geometrical constructions equivalent to non-linear algebraic transformations of the plane in Newton's early papers

Summary The theory of constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in Newton's writings is discussed in § 1: the apparatus by which Newton forms the curves, Newton's theorems on forming unicursal curves, his theory of conics, and his theory of (m, n) correspondence. Special Cremona plane and space transformations obtained by Newton's organic method are dealt with in § 2. The article ends with § 3, which shows two different directions in the theory of the constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in the XVIII-XIXth centuries. A synopsis is appended.Abbreviations MPN The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, edited by D. T. Whiteside, Vols. 1–3, Cambridge, 1967–1969 - Hudson H. Hudson, Cremona Transformations in Plane and Space, Cambridge, 1927 - PT (abridged) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1665–1800 (abridged), London, 1809 - Andreev ₁ K. A. Andreev, On geometrical correspondences ... (in Russian), Moscow, 1879 - Andreev ₂ K. A. Andreev, On the Geometrical Formation of Plane Curves (in Russian), Kharkov, 1875     

Newton,Gases, and Daltonian chemistry: The foundations of combination in definite proportion

This study deals with the relationship between Newton's gas model in the Principia (Book II, Proposition xxiii) and Dalton's theorizing. Dalton's first theory of mixed gases is an elegant extension of the Newtonian gas model which, in turn, led Dalton to a general model of chemical combination. The views on combination are contrasted with those of Arnold Thackray. Interestingly, the model of combination was knowingly based on a falsified theory.     

Reconstruction of a Greek table of chords

Summary R. R. Newton has shown that Ptolemy's table of solar declinations (Almagest I, 15) was not computed from Ptolemy's own table of chords. Newton explains this by assuming that Ptolemy copied his table of declinations from an earlier source, and that originally the table has been computed by means of a less accurate table of chords.In the present paper I shall venture a tentative reconstruction of the method of computation of this ancient table of chords. The clue to this reconstruction is a recursion formula which allows a rapid calculation of the chords belonging to arcs of 1°, 2°, ... in a circle. This recursion formula, which was suggested to me by a verse in the ryabhtya of ryabhata, can be deduced from a theorem of Archimedes concerning a certain sum of chords in a circle. I suppose that this recursion formula was used by Apollonius of Perga in order to obtain a table of chords, and that this table of chords was used by a Greek author (possibly Apollonios himself or Hipparchos) to calculate the table of solar declinations used by Ptolemy. If this hypothesis is adopted, the errors in Ptolemy's table can be explained.     

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 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?     

Emilie du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique as a document in the history of French Newtonianism

This paper discusses the contribution of Madame Du Châtelet to the reception of Newtonianism in France prior to her translation of Newton’s Principia. It focuses on her Institutions de physique, a work normally considered for its contribution to the reception of Leibniz in France. By comparing the different editions of the Institutions, I argue that her interest in Newton antedated her interest in Leibniz, and that she did not see Leibniz’s metaphysics as incompatible with Newtonian science. Her Newtonianism can be seen to be in the course of development between 1738 and 1742 and it was shaped by contemporary French debates (for example the vis viva controversy) and the achievement of French Newtonians like Maupertuis in confirming his theories. Her Institutions therefore is linked to the same drive to disseminate Newtonianism undertaken by popularisations such as Voltaire’s Elements de la philosophie de Newton and Algarotti’s Newtonianismo per le dame.     

P.S. Laplace's work on probability

Taken together with my previous articles [77], [80] devoted to the history of finite random sums and to Laplace's theory of errors, this paper sheds sufficient light on the whole work of Laplace in probability. Laplace's theory of probability is subdivided into theory of probability proper, limit theorems and mathematical statistics (not yet distinguished as a separate entity). I maintain that in its very design Laplace's theory of probability is a discipline pertaining to natural science rather than to mathematics. I maintain also the idea that the so-called Laplacian determinism was no hindrance to applications of his theory of probability to natural science and that one of his utterances in this connection could have well been made by Maxwell's contemporaries.Two possible reasons why the theory of probability stagnated after Laplace's work are singled out: the absence of new fields of application and, also, the insufficient level of mathematical abstraction used by Laplace. For all his achievements, I reach the general conclusion that he did not originate the theory of probability as it is now known. Dedicated to the memory of my Father, Boris A. Sheynin (1898–1975), the first generation of the Russian revolution Cette inégalité [Lunaire] quoique indiquée par les observations, était négligée par le plus grand nombre des astronomes, parce qu'elle ne paraissait pas résulter de la théorie de la pesanteur universelle. Mais, ayant soumis son existence au Calcul des Probabilités, elle me parut indiqués avec une probabilité si forte, que je crus devoir en rechercher la cause.(P. S. Laplace (Théor. anal. prob., p. 361))     

Newton and the classical theory of probability

Summary Probabilistic ideas and methods from Newton's writings are discussed in § 1: Newton's ideas pertaining to the definition of probability, his probabilistic method in chronology, his probabilistic ideas and method in the theory of errors and his probabilistic reasonings on the system of the world. Newton's predecessors and his influence upon subsequent scholars are dealt with in §2: beginning with his predecessors the discussion continues with his contemporaries Arbuthnot and De Moiver, then Bentley. The section ends with Laplace, whose determinism is seen as a development of the Newtonian determinism.An addendum is devoted to Lambert's reasoning on randomness and to the influence of Darwin on statistics. A synopsis is attached at the end of the article.Abbreviations PT abridged Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1665–1800 abridged. London, 1809 - Todhunter I. Todhunter, History of the mathematical theory of probability, Cambridge, 1865 To the memory of my mother, Sophia Sheynin (1900–1970)     

Neue Gesichtspunkte zum 5. Buch Euklids

Summary The author's purpose is to read the main work of Euclid with modern eyes and to find out what knowledge a mathematician of today, familiar with the works of V. D. Waerden and Bourbaki, can gain by studying Euclid's theory of magnitudes, and what new insight into Greek mathematics occupation with this subject can provide.The task is to analyse and to axiomatize by modern means (i) in a narrower sense Book V. of the Elements, i.e. the theory of proportion of Eudoxus, (ii) in a wider sense the whole sphere of magnitudes which Euclid applies in his Elements. This procedure furnishes a clear picture of the inherent structure of his work, thereby making visible specific characteristics of Greek mathematics.After a clarification of the preconditions and a short survey of the historical development of the theory of proportions (Part I of this work), an exact analysis of the definitions and propositions of Book V. of the Elements is carried out in Part II. This is done word by word. The author applies his own system of axioms, set up in close accordance with Euclid, which permits one to deduce all definitions and propositions of Euclid's theory of magnitudes (especially those of Books V. and VI.).In this way gaps and tacit assumptions in the work become clearly visible; above all, the logical structure of the system of magnitudes given by Euclid becomes evident: not ratio — like something sui generis — is the governing concept of Book V., but magnitudes and their relation of having a ratio form the base of the theory of proportions. These magnitudes represent a well defined structure, a so-called Eudoxic Semigroup with the numbers as operators; it can easily be imbedded in a general theory of magnitudes equally applicable to geometry and physics.The transition to ratios — a step not executed by Euclid — is examined in Part III; it turns out to be particularly unwieldy. An elegant way opens up by interpreting proportion as a mapping of totally ordered semigroups. When closely examined, this mapping proves to be an isomorphism, thus suggesting the application of the modern theory of homomorphism. This theory permits a treatment of the theory of proportions as developed by Eudoxus and Euclid which is hardly surpassable in brevity and elegance in spite of its close affinity to Euclid. The generalization to a classically founded theory of magnitudes is now self-evident.

---

---

Vorgelegt von J. E. Hofmann     

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.

     

Do Newton’s rules of reasoning guarantee truth … must they?

Newton’s Principia introduces four rules of reasoning for natural philosophy. Although useful, there is a concern about whether Newton’s rules guarantee truth. After redirecting the discussion from truth to validity, I show that these rules are valid insofar as they fulfill Goodman’s criteria for inductive rules and Newton’s own methodological program of experimental philosophy; provided that cross-checks are used prior to applications of rule 4 and immediately after applications of rule 2 the following activities are pursued: (1) research addressing observations that systematically deviate from theoretical idealizations and (2) applications of theory that safeguard ongoing research from proceeding down a garden path.     

Der Eigenartige Einfluß Witelos auf die Entwicklung der Dioptrik

Summary Witelo's Perspectiva, which was printed three times in the sixteenth century, profoundly influenced the science of dioptrics until the Age of Newton. Above all, the optical authors were interested in the so-called Vitellian tables, which Witelo must have copied from the nearly forgotten optical Sermones of Claudius Ptolemy. Research work was often based on these tables. Thus Kepler relied on the Vitellian tables when he invented his law of refraction. Several later authors adopted Kepler's law, not always because they believed it to be true, but because they did not know of any better law. Also Harriot used the Vitellian tables until his own experiments convinced him that Witelo's angles were grossly inaccurate. Unfortunately Harriot kept his results and his sine law for himself and for a few friends. The sine law was not published until 1637, by Descartes, who gave an indirect proof of it. Although this proof consisted in the first correct calculation of both rainbows, accomplished by means of the sine law, the Jesuits Kircher (Ars Magna, 1646) and Schott (Magia Optica, 1656) did not mention the sine law. Marci (Thaumantias, 1648) did not know of it, and Fabri (Synopsis Opticæ, 1667) rejected it. It is true that the sine law was accepted by authors like Maignan (Perspectiva Horaria, 1648) and Grimaldi (Physico-Mathesis, 1665), but since they used the erroneous Vitellian angles for computing the refractive index, they discredited the sine law by inaccurate and even ludicrous results.That even experimental determinations might be unduly biased by the Vitellian angles is evident from the author's graphs of seventeenth century refractive angles. These graphs also show how difficult it was to measure such angles accurately, and how the Jesuit authors of the 1640's adapted their experimental angles to the traditional Vitellian ones. Witelo's famous angles, instead of furthering the progress of dioptrics, delayed it. Their disastrous influence may be traced for nearly thirty years after Descartes had published the correct law of refraction.

---

---

Vorgelegt von C. Truesdell     

Newton’s notion and practice of unification

In this paper I deal with a neglected topic with respect to unification in Newton’s Principia. I will clarify Newton’s notion (as can be found in Newton’s utterances on unification) and practice of unification (its actual occurrence in his scientific work). In order to do so, I will use the recent theories on unification as tools of analysis (Kitcher, Salmon and Schurz). I will argue, after showing that neither Kitcher’s nor Schurz’s account aptly capture Newton’s notion and practice of unification, that Salmon’s later work is a good starting point for analysing this notion and its practice in the Principia. Finally, I will supplement Salmon’s account in order to answer the question at stake.