Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FIGURE 7
BOX 5
-3i -2i -i i 2i 3i
Fermat’s Principle
What the reason was for the change in tionship between the angles of inci-
light’s direction when passing from dence and refraction could be deter-
-2
one medium to another was a major mined (Figure 1). It was in 1621, that
fight in the 17th Century, and it must the Dutch investigator Willebrord Snell
become so, again, today. Fermat’s determined that it is the sines of the
principle that light’s action is deter- angles of incidence and refraction that
-4 mined by the principle of quickest maintain a constant ratio for a given
time, was a political statement, a clear pair of media, an experiment that is
attack on the prevalent empiricist worth carrying out yourself (Figure 2).
thinking, and a call back to the method Although Snell is correct, this
-6 of Greek knowledge. It demanded a observation of effects does not address
conception of physical science that itself to cause. Descartes, insisting that
places man in his proper place—as in light had to be understood as ballistic
the image of, and participating in a particles (in opposition to da Vinci,
single Creation, overthrowing the oli- and to keep his purely mechanical out-
-8
garchical view that placed man infi- look) was forced to conclude, erro-
Equation X = x2 + 1: nitely below the incomprehensible neously, that light actually sped up
caprice of the Olympian gods and upon entering water. He also claimed
3i 2i i 0 i 2i 3i
x__________________________________ human feudal lords. Snell’s discovery as his own! Fermat
The refractive behavior of light had found this speeding up to be absurd,
X 8 3 0 1 0 3 8 been a source of study and consterna- and sought to determine the cause for
tion for centuries, since no simple rela- Box 5 continues on next page
progresses, and he only progresses
when he applies his uniquely human FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2 quickly. Claims that knowable ideas and tent? What is he afraid could happen to
intentions direct the universe were not the practice of science and society if
acceptable by the oligarchical faction. Fermat’s principle and approach were
A sin α The Cartesian view insisted on a strict generally adopted?
separation between ideas of human
minds, and the purely mechanical opera- Generalize Fermat’s Concept
α
tions of the physical universe. Claude Find out: Generalize Fermat’s con-
B Clerselier, a friend of the by-then- cept. Although a relationship of sines is
deceased Descartes, wrote, shortly after a geometric statement, the intention of
β Fermat’s hypothesis: quickest time is not, itself, geometric. If
“The principle you take as a basis for this is true for light, what can we say of
your proof, to wit, that nature always other processes? Do their geometric
sin β acts by the shortest and simplest path, is effects cause themselves, or must we
C
only a moral principle, not a physical generalize least action? Must every
one: it is not and cannot be the cause of material event be considered irreducibly
any effect in nature . . . cannot be the as the effect of a non-material, physical
Snell determined that the ratio sin :sin cause, for otherwise we would be intention?
is maintained for two media, no matter at attributing knowledge to nature: and Leibniz writes in his Monadology:
what angle the light hits the boundary. here, by nature, we understand only that “Our reasoning is based upon two great
order and lawfulness in the world, such principles: first, that of Contradiction, by
light’s behavior. as it is, which acts without foreknowl- means of which we decide that to be false
To note the sine relationship is good, edge, without choice, but by a necessary which involves contradiction and that to
but to actually assert that this trend is a determination.” be true which contradicts or is opposed to
scientific principle would not be an hon- Is Clerselier right? Why is he so insis- the false. And second, the principle of
est blunder, it would be an admission by
anyone who would make that statement, FIGURE 3
that that person believes principles are
unknowable.1
Fermat sought not to describe the
motion of the fish, but the shape of the
aquarium in which they swam: He
returned to the Greek discovery that
light reflected off a mirror takes the path
of minimal distance, an experiment
worth performing on your own (Figure
3).
Fermat took up this approach, and
hypothesized and demonstrated in 1662
that light follows a path of quickest time,
rather than shortest distance: As far as the
light is concerned, it is always propagat-
ing straight ahead by this principle. This
hypothesis results in the sine ratio dis-
covered by Snell, but Fermat delivered
the child whose form Snell accurately
reported.
Fermat politically dared to hypothe- LYM members re-creating the Greek discovery of minimal distance for reflected light. The
size a cause for action in the universe, reflective path from eye to eye can be “felt” by a third person as minimizing the required
and the attacks on this daring came string from one eye to the other.