The Life of Galileo Galilei, with Illustrations of the Advancement of Experimental Philosophy / Life of Kepler

by John Elliot Drinkwater Bethune

"I tried another way of measuring the refraction, which should include the density of the medium and the incidence: for, since a denser medium is the cause of refraction, it seems to be the same thing as if we were to prolong the depth of the medium in which the rays are refracted into as much space as would be filled by the denser medium under the force of the rarer one.

"Let A be the place of the light, BC the surface of the denser medium, DE its bottom. Let AB, AG, AF be rays falling obliquely, which would arrive at D, I, H, if the medium were uniform. But because it is denser, suppose the bottom to be depressed to KL, determined by this that there is as much of the denser matter contained in the space DC as of the rarer in LC: and thus, on the sinking of the whole bottom DE, the points D, I, H, E will descend vertically to L, M, N, K. Join the points BL, GM, FN, cutting DE in O, P, Q; the refracted rays will be ABO, AGP, AFQ."—"This method is refuted by experiment; it gives the refractions near the perpendicular AC too great in respect of those near the horizon. Whoever has leisure may verify this, either by calculation or compasses. It may be added that the reasoning itself is not very sure-footed, and, whilst seeking to measure other things, scarcely takes in and comprehends itself." This reflection must not be mistaken for the dawn of suspicion that his examination of philosophical questions began not altogether at the right end: it is merely an acknowledgment that he had not yet contrived a theory with which he was quite satisfied before it was disproved by experiment.

After some experience of Kepler's miraculous good fortune in seizing truths across the wildest and most absurd theories, it is not easy to keep clear of the opposite feeling of surprise whenever any of his extravagancies fail to discover to him some beautiful law of nature. But we must follow him as he plunges deeper in this unsuccessful inquiry; and the reader must remember, in order fully to appreciate this method of philosophizing, that it is almost certain that Kepler laboured upon every one of the gratuitous suppositions that he makes, until positive experiment satisfied him of their incorrectness.

"I go on to other methods. Since density is clearly connected with the cause of the refractions, and refraction itself seems a kind of compression of light, as it were, towards the perpendicular, it occurred to me to examine whether there was the same proportion between the mediums in respect of density and the parts of the bottom illuminated by the light, when let into a vessel, first empty, and afterwards filled with water. This mode branches out into many: for the proportion may be imagined, either in the straight lines, as if one should say that the line EQ, illuminated by refraction, is to EH illuminated directly, as the density of the one medium is to that of the other—Or another may suppose the proportion to be between FC and FH—Or it may be conceived to exist among surfaces, or so that some power of EQ should be to some power of EH in this proportion, or the circles or similar figures described on them. In this manner the proportion of EQ to EP would be double that of EH to EI—Or the proportion may be conceived existing among the solidities of the pyramidal frustums FHEC, FQEC—Or, since the proportion of the mediums involves a threefold consideration, since they have density in length, breadth, and thickness, I proceeded also to examine the cubic proportions among the lines EQ, EH.

"I also considered other lines. From any of the points of refraction as G, let a perpendicular GY be dropped upon the bottom. It may become a question whether possibly the triangle IGY, that is, the base IY, is divided by the refracted ray GP, in the proportion of the densities of the mediums.

"I have put all these methods here together, because the same remark disproves them all. For, in whatever manner, whether as line, plane, or pyramid, EI observes a given proportion to EP, or the abbreviated line YI to YP, namely, the proportion of the mediums, it is sure that EI, the tangent of the distance of the point A from the vertex, will become infinite, and will, therefore make EP or YP, also infinite. Therefore, IGP, the angle of refraction, will be entirely lost; and, as it approaches the horizon, will gradually become less and less, which is contrary to experiment.

"I tried again whether the images are equally removed from their points of refraction, and whether the ratio of the densities measures the least distance. For instance, supposing E to be the image, C the surface of the water, K the bottom, and CE to CK in the proportion of the densities of the mediums. Now, let F, G, B, be three other points of refraction and images at S, T, V, and let CE be equal to FS, GT, and BV. But according to this rule an image E would still be somewhat raised in the perpendicular AK, which is contrary to experiment, not to mention other contradictions. Thirdly, whether the proportion of the mediums holds between FH and FX, supposing H to be the place of the image? Not at all. For so, CE would be in the same proportion to CK, so that the height of the image would always be the same, which we have just refuted. Fourthly, whether the raising of the image at E is to the raising at H, as CE to FH? Not in the least; for so the images either would never begin to be raised, or, having once begun, would at last be infinitely raised, because FH at last becomes infinite. Fifthly, whether the images rise in proportion to the sines of the inclinations? Not at all; for so the proportion of ascent would be the same in all mediums. Sixthly, are then the images raised at first, and in perpendicular radiation, according to the proportion of the mediums, and do they subsequently rise more and more according to the sines of the inclinations? For so the proportion would be compound, and would become different in different mediums. There is nothing in it: for the calculation disagreed with experiment. And generally it is in vain to have regard to the image or the place of the image, for that very reason, that it is imaginary. For there is no connexion between the density of the medium or any real quality or refraction of the light, and an accident of vision, by an error of which the image happens.

"Up to this point, therefore, I had followed a nearly blind mode of inquiry, and had trusted to good fortune; but now I opened the other eye, and hit upon a sure method, for I pondered the fact, that the image of a thing seen under water approaches closely to the true ratio of the refraction, and almost measures it; that it is low if the thing is viewed directly from above; that by degrees it rises as the eye passes towards the horizon of the water. Yet, on the other hand, the reason alleged above, proves that the measure is not to be sought in the image, because the image is not a thing actually existing, but arises from a deception of vision which is purely accidental. By a comparison of these conflicting arguments, it occurred to me at length, to seek the causes themselves of the existence of the image under water, and in these causes the measure of the refractions. This opinion was strengthened in me by seeing that opticians had not rightly pointed out the cause of the image which appears both in mirrors and in water. And this was the origin of that labour which I undertook in the third chapter. Nor, indeed, was that labour trifling, whilst hunting down false opinions of all sorts among the principles, in a matter rendered so intricate by the false traditions of optical writers; whilst striking out half a dozen different paths, and beginning anew the whole business. How often did it happen that a rash confidence made me look upon that which I sought with such ardour, as at length discovered!

"At length I cut this worse than Gordian knot of catoptrics by analogy alone, by considering what happens in mirrors, and what must happen analogically in water. In mirrors, the image appears at a distance from the real place of the object, not being itself material, but produced solely by reflection at the polished surface. Whence it followed in water also, that the images rise and approach the surface, not according to the law of the greater or less density in the water, as the view is less or more oblique, but solely because of the refraction of the ray of light passing from the object to the eye. On which assumption, it is plain that every attempt I had hitherto made to measure refractions by the image, and its elevation, must fall to the ground. And this became more evident when I discovered the true reason why the image is in the same perpendicular line with the object both in mirrors and in dense mediums. When I had succeeded thus far by analogy in this most difficult investigation, as to the place of the image, I began to follow out the analogy further, led on by the strong desire of measuring refraction. For I wished to get hold of some measure of some sort, no matter how blindly, having no fear but that so soon as the measure should be accurately known, the cause would plainly appear. I went to work as follows. In convex mirrors the image is diminished, and just so in rarer mediums; in denser mediums it is magnified, as in concave mirrors. In convex mirrors the central parts of the image approach, and recede in concave farther than towards the circumference; the same thing happens in different mediums, so that in water the bottom appears depressed, and the surrounding parts elevated. Hence it appears that a denser medium corresponds with a concave reflecting surface, and a rarer one with a convex one: it was clear, at the same time, that the plane surface of the water affects a property of curvature. I was, therefore, to excogitate causes consistent with its having this effect of curvature, and to see if a reason could be given, why the parts of the water surrounding the incident perpendicular should represent a greater density than the parts just under the perpendicular. And so the thing came round again to my former attempts, which being refuted by reason and experiment, I was forced to abandon the search after a cause. I then proceeded to measurements."

Kepler then endeavoured to connect his measurements of different quantities of refraction with the conic sections, and was tolerably well pleased with some of his results. They were however not entirely satisfactory, on which he breaks off with the following sentence: "Now, reader, you and I have been detained sufficiently long whilst I have been attempting to collect into one faggot the measure of different refractions: I acknowledge that the cause cannot be connected with this mode of measurement: for what is there in common between refractions made at the plane surfaces of transparent mediums, and mixtilinear conic sections? Wherefore, quod Deus bene vortat, we will now have had enough of the causes of this measure; and although, even now, we are perhaps erring something from the truth, yet it is better, by working on, to show our industry, than our laziness by neglect."