In science, he would have been known only for the contributions he made to optics, which, while notable, were no more so than those made by Huygens and Grimaldi, neither of whom had much impact on philosophy; and in mathematics, his failure to publish would have relegated his work to not much more than a footnote to the achievements of Leibniz and his school. But this adds still a further complication, for the Principia itself was substantially different things to different people.
The press-run of the first edition estimated to be around was too small for it to have been read by all that many individuals. The second edition also appeared in two pirated Amsterdam editions, and hence was much more widely available, as was the third edition and its English and later French translation.
The Principia , however, is not an easy book to read, so one must still ask, even of those who had access to it, whether they read all or only portions of the book and to what extent they grasped the full complexity of what they read.
The detailed commentary provided in the three volume Jesuit edition —42 made the work less daunting. An important question to ask of any philosophers commenting on Newton is, what primary sources had they read? The s witnessed a major transformation in the standing of the science in the Principia.
The Principia itself had left a number of loose-ends, most of them detectable by only highly discerning readers. By , however, some of these loose-ends had been cited in Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle's elogium for Newton [ 4 ] and in John Machin's appendix to the English translation of the Principia , raising questions about just how secure Newton's theory of gravity was, empirically.
The shift on the continent began in the s when Maupertuis convinced the Royal Academy to conduct expeditions to Lapland and Peru to determine whether Newton's claims about the non-spherical shape of the Earth and the variation of surface gravity with latitude are correct. Euler was the central figure in turning the three laws of motion put forward by Newton in the Principia into Newtonian mechanics. Most of the effort of eighteenth century mechanics was devoted to solving problems of the motion of rigid bodies, elastic strings and bodies, and fluids, all of which require principles beyond Newton's three laws.
From the s on this led to alternative approaches to formulating a general mechanics, employing such different principles as the conservation of vis viva , the principle of least action, and d'Alembert's principle. During the s Euler developed his equations for the motion of fluids, and in the s, his equations of rigid-body motion.
What we call Newtonian mechanics was accordingly something for which Euler was more responsible than Newton. Although some loose-ends continued to defy resolution until much later in the eighteenth century, by the early s Newton's theory of gravity had become the accepted basis for ongoing research among almost everyone working in orbital astronomy.
Clairaut's successful prediction of the month of return of Halley's comet at the end of this decade made a larger segment of the educated public aware of the extent to which empirical grounds for doubting Newton's theory of gravity had largely disappeared. Even so, one must still ask of anyone outside active research in gravitational astronomy just how aware they were of the developments from ongoing efforts when they made their various pronouncements about the standing of the science of the Principia among the community of researchers.
The naivety of these pronouncements cuts both ways: on the one hand, they often reflected a bloated view of how secure Newton's theory was at the time, and, on the other, they often underestimated how strong the evidence favoring it had become. The upshot is a need to be attentive to the question of what anyone, even including Newton himself, had in mind when they spoke of the science of the Principia.
To view the seventy years of research after Newton died as merely tying up the loose-ends of the Principia or as simply compiling more evidence for his theory of gravity is to miss the whole point.
Research predicated on Newton's theory had answered a huge number of questions about the world dating from long before it. The motion of the Moon and the trajectories of comets were two early examples, both of which answered such questions as how one comet differs from another and what details make the Moon's motion so much more complicated than that of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.
In the s Laplace had developed a proper theory of the tides, reaching far beyond the suggestions Newton had made in the Principia by including the effects of the Earth's rotation and the non-radial components of the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon, components that dominate the radial component that Newton had singled out. In Laplace identified a large year fluctuation in the motions of Jupiter and Saturn arising from quite subtle features of their respective orbits.
With this discovery, calculation of the motion of the planets from the theory of gravity became the basis for predicting planet positions, with observation serving primarily to identify further forces not yet taken into consideration in the calculation. From that time forward, Newtonian science sprang from Laplace's work, not Newton's. The success of the research in celestial mechanics predicated on the Principia was unprecedented. Nothing of comparable scope and accuracy had ever occurred before in empirical research of any kind.
That led to a new philosophical question: what was it about the science of the Principia that enabled it to achieve what it did? Philosophers like Locke and Berkeley began asking this question while Newton was still alive, but it gained increasing force as successes piled on one another over the decades after he died. This question had a practical side, as those working in other fields like chemistry pursued comparable success, and others like Hume and Adam Smith aimed for a science of human affairs.
It had, of course, a philosophical side, giving rise to the subdiscipline of philosophy of science, starting with Kant and continuing throughout the nineteenth century as other areas of physical science began showing similar signs of success.
The Einsteinian revolution in the beginning of the twentieth century, in which Newtonian theory was shown to hold only as a limiting case of the special and general theories of relativity, added a further twist to the question, for now all the successes of Newtonian science, which still remain in place, have to be seen as predicated on a theory that holds only to high approximation in parochial circumstances.
The extraordinary character of the Principia gave rise to a still continuing tendency to place great weight on everything Newton said.
This, however, was, and still is, easy to carry to excess. One need look no further than Book 2 of the Principia to see that Newton had no more claim to being somehow in tune with nature and the truth than any number of his contemporaries.
Newton's manuscripts do reveal an exceptional level of attention to detail of phrasing, from which we can rightly conclude that his pronouncements, especially in print, were generally backed by careful, self-critical reflection. But this conclusion does not automatically extend to every statement he ever made. We must constantly be mindful of the possibility of too much weight being placed, then or now, on any pronouncement that stands in relative isolation over his 60 year career; and, to counter the tendency to excess, we should be even more vigilant than usual in not losing sight of the context, circumstantial as well as historical and textual, of both Newton's statements and the eighteenth century reaction to them.
Isaac Newton First published Wed Dec 19, Newton's Life 1. Newton's Life Newton's life naturally divides into four parts: the years before he entered Trinity College, Cambridge in ; his years in Cambridge before the Principia was published in ; a period of almost a decade immediately following this publication, marked by the renown it brought him and his increasing disenchantment with Cambridge; and his final three decades in London, for most of which he was Master of the Mint.
Among the several problems Hooke proposed to Newton was the question of the trajectory of a body under an inverse-square central force: It now remaines to know the proprietys of a curve Line not circular nor concentricall made by a centrall attractive power which makes the velocitys of Descent from the tangent Line or equall straight motion at all Distances in a Duplicate proportion to the Distances Reciprocally taken.
I doubt not but that by your excellent method you will easily find out what the Curve must be, and it proprietys, and suggest a physicall Reason of this proportion. Newton's Work and Influence Three factors stand in the way of giving an account of Newton's work and influence. This stance is perhaps best summarized in his fourth Rule of Reasoning, added in the third edition of the Principia , but adopted as early as his Optical Lectures of the s: In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be taken to be either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
Newton contrasted himself most strongly with Leibniz in this regard at the end of his anonymous review of the Royal Society's report on the priority dispute over the calculus: It must be allowed that these two Gentlemen differ very much in Philosophy.
The one proceeds upon the Evidence arising from Experiments and Phenomena, and stops where such Evidence is wanting; the other is taken up with Hypotheses, and propounds them, not to be examined by Experiments, but to be believed without Examination.
The one for want of Experiments to decide the Question, doth not affirm whether the Cause of Gravity be Mechanical or not Mechanical; the other that it is a perpetual Miracle if it be not Mechanical. Cohen, 2 vols. Cohen, Berkeley: University of California Press, Now available under the same title, but based on the fourth posthumous edition of , New York: Dover Publications, John Conduit, London, The original version of the third book of the Principia , retitled by the translator and reissued in reprint form, London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, Benjamin Smith, London and Dublin, Turnbull, J.
Scott, A. Hall, and L. Tilling, 7 vols. Whiteside, 8 vols. Whiteside, 2 vols. Contains facsimile reprints of the translations into English published during the first half of the 18 th century. Hall and M. Hall, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cohen and R. His experiments revealed that color arose from reflection and transmission of light and primarily from selective absorption of light by materials. From observation of the different angles at which individual wavelengths of light dispersed from a prism, he concluded that color arises from a fundamental property of light itself, though revealed only through interaction with matter.
He also stated the fact which most neuroscientists will agree with today, that human perception of color is essentially a mental phenomenon or subjective experience. In the process, he invented a new kind of telescope. Newton promoted the concept of a universal ether through which light propagates. This was later proved wrong by experimental tests of the special theory of relativity.
However, the idea got a sort of new life when Einstein introduced light to be made of photons which are energy corpuscles. However, photons are far different from the corpuscles that Newton imagined. Nevertheless, he provided the impetus to new lines of thought. Among his other stellar discoveries, Newton also came up with an empirical theory explaining the rate at which your hot cup of coffee cools. The law discovered by him states that the rate of cooling in a body is directly proportional to temperature difference between the body and its surroundings.
Mathematically, it can be stated as follows:. His first original contribution to mathematics was the advancement of binomial theorem. Through the usage of algebra of finite quantities in an infinite series, he included negative and fractional exponents in the binomial theorem.
Isolated during the plague years at Woolsthorpe Manor, Newton came up with his greatest breakthroughs in physics and mathematics. Through invention of Infinitesimal Calculus, credit for which also belongs to Leibniz , Newton provided a mathematical framework which enabled the study of continuous changes.
He called it the Science of Fluxions. The invention of calculus ranks right up there with invention of fire or the building of the first steam engine. His approach to calculus was geometrical, in contrast to Leibniz, who was inclined more towards the analytical side. He also made contributions to numerical analysis in the form of the Newton-Raphson method. He was knighted in by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work.
However the last portion of his life was not an easy one, dominated in many ways with the controversy with Leibniz over which of them had invented the calculus.
Given the rage that Newton had shown throughout his life when criticised, it is not surprising that he flew into an irrational temper directed against Leibniz.
We have given details of this controversy in Leibniz 's biography and refer the reader to that article for details. Perhaps all that is worth relating here is how Newton used his position as President of the Royal Society. In this capacity he appointed an "impartial" committee to decide whether he or Leibniz was the inventor of the calculus.
He wrote the official report of the committee although of course it did not appear under his name which was published by the Royal Society , and he then wrote a review again anonymously which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
Newton's assistant Whiston had seen his rage at first hand. He wrote:- Newton was of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I ever knew. References show. Biography in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Z Bechler, Newton's physics and the conceptual structure of the scientific revolution Dordrecht, G Castelnuovo, Le origini del calcolo infinitesimale nell'era moderna, con scritti di Newton, Leibniz, Torricelli Milan, J Fauvel ed.
New York, Newton and the Enlightenment, Vistas Astronom. Biography Series Moscow, Including Leibniz's unpublished manuscripts on the 'Principia' New York, A , - S Aoki, The moon-test in Newton's 'Principia' : accuracy of inverse-square law of universal gravitation, Arch. Exact Sci. London 41 2 , - M Bartolozzi and R Franci, A fragment of the history of algebra : Newton's rule on the number of imaginary roots in an algebraic equation Italian , Rend.
XL Mem. Z Bechler, Newton's ontology of the force of inertia, in The investigation of difficult things Cambridge, , - Z Bechler, 'A less agreeable matter' : the disagreeable case of Newton and achromatic refraction, British J.
Z Bechler, Newton's search for a mechanistic model of colour dispersion : a suggested interpretation, Arch. History Exact Sci. E T Bell, Newton after three centuries, Amer. Monthly 49 , - Buenos Aires 12 , 9 - Histoire Sci. Monthly 56 , 73 - J B Brackenridge, The critical role of curvature in Newton's developing dynamics, in The investigation of difficult things Cambridge, , - J B Brackenridge, Newton's unpublished dynamical principles : a study in simplicity, Ann. J B Brackenridge, Newton's mature dynamics : revolutionary or reactionary?
London 42 1 , 35 - P Casini, Newton : the classical scholia, Hist. M Cernohorsk'y, The rotation in Newton's wording of his first law of motion, in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica' Singapore, , 28 - Canada 37 , 1 - C Christensen, Newton's method for resolving affected equations, College Math. Storia Sci. London 47 1 , 1 - 9. London 45 2 , - G V Coyne, Newton's controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, in Newton and the new direction in science Vatican City, , - Intelligencer 13 1 , 61 - R Duda, Newton and the mathematical concept of space, in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica' Singapore, , 72 - London 50 2 , - H Erlichson, Newton's polygon model and the second order fallacy, Centaurus 35 3 - 4 , - H Erlichson, Newton and Hooke on centripetal force motion, Centaurus 35 1 , 46 - H Erlichson, Newton's first inverse solutions, Centaurus 34 4 , - H Erlichson, Newton's solution to the equiangular spiral problem and a new solution using only the equiangular property, Historia Math.
H Erlichson, How Newton went from a mathematical model to a physical model for the problem of a first power resistive force, Centaurus 34 3 , - H Erlichson, Motive force and centripetal force in Newton's mechanics, Amer. London 27 , 45 - M Feingold, Newton, Leibniz, and Barrow too : an attempt at a reinterpretation, Isis 84 2 , - London 42 2 , A Ferguson, Newton and the 'Principia', Philos.
Acta 67 8 , - K Figala, J Harrison and U Petzold, 'De scriptoribus chemicis' : sources for the establishment of Isaac Newton's al chemical library, in The investigation of difficult things Cambridge, , - G Findlay Shirras, Newton, a study of a master mind, Arch. M A Finocchiaro, Newton's third rule of philosophizing : a rule for logic in historiography, Isis 65 , 66 - A Gabbey, Newton's 'Mathematical principles of natural philosophy' : a treatise on 'mechanics'?
M Gagnon, Les arguments de Newton concernant l'existence du mouvement, de l'espace et du temps absolus, Dialogue 25 4 , - M Galuzzi, Some considerations about motion in a resisting medium in Newton's 'Principia', in Conference on the History of Mathematics Rende, , - Mathesis 6 2 , - J Gani, Newton on 'a question touching ye different odds upon certain given chances upon dice', Math.
Torino 46 1 , 1 - A T Grigor'yan, Isaac Newton's work of genius Russian , Studies in the history of physics and mechanics 'Nauka' Moscow, , - ; - H Guerlac, 'Newton's mathematical way' : another look, British J. H Guerlac, Can we date Newton's early optical experiments? Z Hajduk, Isaac Newton's philosophy of nature, in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica' Singapore, , 96 - A R Hall, Newton and the absolutes : sources, in The investigation of difficult things Cambridge, , - London 44 1 , 13 - London 37 1 , 7 - London 29 , 29 - London 49 1 , 71 - Newton's 'Principia' and its legacy, Notes and Records Roy.
London 42 1 , 75 - J L Hawes, Newton's revival of the aether hypothesis and the explanation of gravitational attraction, Notes and Records Roy. London 23 , - J W Herivel, Newtonian studies. M Hoskin, Newton and the beginnings of stellar astronomy, in Newton and the new direction in science Vatican City, , 55 - R C Hovis, What can the history of mathematics learn from philosophy?
A case study in Newton's presentation of the calculus, Philos. Mexicana Fis. T Ishigaki, Newton's 'Principia' from a logical point of view, Ann. Japan Assoc. P Kerszberg, The cosmological question in Newton's science, Osiris 2 2 , 69 - Tela 20 , 46 - 67 ; P Kitcher, Fluxions, limits, and infinite littlenesse : A study of Newton's presentation of the calculus, Isis 64 , 33 - N Kollerstrom, Newton's two 'moon-tests', British J. MGU Istor. L L Kul'vetsas, The content of the concept of force in Newton's mechanics Russian , in Studies in the history of physics and mechanics, 'Nauka' Moscow, , - Nauk SSSR.
T Lai, Did Newton renounce infinitesimals? Nauk 63 1 , 33 - J E Littlewood, Newton and the attraction of a sphere, Math. J A Lohne, Hooke versus Newton : An analysis of the documents in the case on free fall and planetary motion, Centaurus 7 , 6 - J A Lohne, Newton's table of refractive powers. Origins, accuracy, and influence, Sudhoffs Arch.
0コメント