Hobbes und das Sinusgesetz der Refraktion

Annals of Science 57 (4):415-440 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the sine law of refraction had been discovered. Thus, natural philosophers tried even more to find a cause of refraction and to demonstrate the law. One of them was Thomas Hobbes, who was the author of the Leviathan and also worked on optics. At first, in the Hobbes analogy , he was influenced by Ibn al-Haytham, just as Descartes was in his famous proof in the Dioptrique . In his later optical scripts Tractatus Opticus I , Tractatus Opticus II , and A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques , he developed a new explanation. Rejecting a corpuscular theory of light, Hobbes conceived a ray not as a body but as a motion originating from the light source: a ray can only be the motion of a body. The normal to the sides of a ray is called 'linea lucis'. If a ray is incident into another medium with a different density, one part of the linea lucis will be in the rarer and the other in the denser medium during an imperceptibly short period. Because the resistances in the two media are different, the parts of the linea lucis will move with different velocities; as a result the linea lucis will rotate and the direction of the ray will be changed. The next explanation given in De Corpore comes closer to the first one that Hobbes set down in the analogy. It must be asked why he replaced the theory of rotation by one which seems to carry less conviction. The reason could be that the dropped theory is founded in part on basic requirements of a corpuscular theory of light. Abandoning the whole theory might have been the lesser evil for Hobbes. In two later works, the Problemata Physica and the Decameron Physiologicum , Hobbes varied his explanation without giving any proof for the sine law. It should be noted, however, that in the Decameron he refers to the proof contained in the Tractatus Opticus I, but not that given in De Corpore

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,458

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hobbes’s model of refraction and derivation of the sine law.Hao Dong - 2021 - Archive for History of Exact Sciences 75 (3):323-348.
The Most Curious of Sciences.Franco Giudice - 2013 - In Aloysius Martinich & Kinch Hoekstra (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes: a very short introduction.Richard Tuck - 2002 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The Anatomy of. [REVIEW]M. H. M. - 1969 - Review of Metaphysics 22 (4):758-758.
Hobbes on Natural Philosophy as "True Physics" and Mixed Mathematics.Marcus P. Adams - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56 (C):43-51.
The development of mersenne's optics.Daniele Cozzoli - 2010 - Perspectives on Science 18 (1):pp. 9-25.
Hobbes’s First Cause.Thomas Holden - 2015 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 53 (4):647-667.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-20

Downloads
63 (#337,925)

6 months
8 (#591,777)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Hobbes’s model of refraction and derivation of the sine law.Hao Dong - 2021 - Archive for History of Exact Sciences 75 (3):323-348.

Add more citations

References found in this work

6 Hobbes on light and vision.Jan Prins - 1996 - In Tom Sorell (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 129.
Hobbes and Fracastoro.Cees Leijenhorst - 1996 - Hobbes Studies 9 (1):98-128.
Tractatus Opticus.T. Hobbes - 1963 - Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia 18 (2):147.
The Cause of Refraction in Medieval Optics.David C. Lindberg - 1968 - British Journal for the History of Science 4 (1):23-38.

View all 6 references / Add more references