We all, without hesitation, believe that Newton was a great mathematician and physicist. Just as we all believed that revolutions are made by an insurgent people. But now we have looked at different revolutions and we know that revolutions are done with the help of gingerbread and sandwiches. Earlier, however, it happened that this was done by drunks … sorry, I, of course, wanted to say, revolutionary sailors. Now the scum has been crushed. Gingerbread is enough for them.
And who hammered into us the idea of a people revolting in indignation? Just those who always present themselves as innocently persecuted, just those who buy and distribute gingerbread and sandwiches, knowing well that if the "revolution" succeeds, the gingerbread and sandwiches will pay off a thousandfold for them.
It is these people who slip and praise us their Newtons and Rubinsteins, Goldsteins and Goldbergs. They know well that this praise will pay off. All of them, who have nothing to do with possible geniuses, will be spoken of not as cunning, but as smart and talented.
Of course, provided that they almost never talk about the geniuses and talents of other nations. But they cannot make this mistake. By their faith or by their Law, they have the right to praise only their own.
But back to Newton. Was he so great and understanding?
Thanks to the Internet, various information reaches us that were previously practically inaccessible to us. For example, the book of Descartes published in 1637. Although Newton was not yet in the world at that time, she can tell a lot about him. Descartes was very famous in Newton's time. Newton also read it. And I learned something from it. For example, information about the decomposition of light by a prism. But he read this information inattentively or did not draw the correct conclusions from a short remark that when observing the outgoing rays through a small hole, rays of all colors are visible at each point. As a result of this, he presented the decomposition of light with a prism incorrectly, but made this understanding of his own the property of his contemporary society. To this matter, he, like everything else, was very creative. Instead of a small exit hole, Newton took a narrow entrance beam of light. But it turned out that this is not a complete replacement. The fact that rays of all colors come out from each point of the output surface was lost by Newton. And the fact that the narrowness of the input beam is not at all necessary, he did not notice either.
The cunning and innocent have brought his (not) understanding to our days. And in his time Huygens took advantage of his vision and developed the wave theory of light, which, how to put it … well, is not entirely correct. It fully corresponds to Newton's flawed understanding of the decomposition of light by a prism.
Newton, it seems, out of natural "modesty" inherent in all cunning and innocent, kept silent about the authorship of Descartes, and we all now think that Newton discovered the decomposition of light by a prism.
Promotional video:
Descartes described his experiment in the chapter On the Rainbow. In the same chapter, he described the appearance of the rainbow itself through the reflection and refraction of sunlight in raindrops. Descartes did not think he was too clever, so he made a very large "raindrop" from a spherical glass vessel filled with water and, experimenting with it, examined and described in detail the reflection and refraction of sunlight in a raindrop, resulting in a rainbow.
Newton, as we know, was "much smarter." He did not need to make a "big drop", he figured out everything "purely theoretically". But like all scientists, he was very distracted. He forgot to point out that in his youth he read Descartes, and that Descartes wrote about it even before his birth. Since then, we all know that Newton explained the appearance of the rainbow to us.
Descartes, like everyone else, was just a man. He was wrong sometimes. And he himself says in his book that he is very often mistaken. Therefore, he checked all his conclusions many times. But all mistakes, especially your own, are hard to find. In his reasoning about the reflection and refraction of light, he likened the particles of light to balls (isn't this the reason Newton's conviction that light is corpuscles, that is, particles?). At the same time, he says that when hitting an obstacle, for example, a racket, the speed of the ball can not only decrease, but also increase. In this case, the angle of refraction will change in the other direction than in the case when the speed decreases. And at the same time I got qualitatively the angle of refraction that is available in the case of glass. Descartes lost sight of the fact that the direction of hitting the racket can be any, and therefore, in this case, the change in the direction of the "ball" speed will also be any. Newton did not notice Descartes' oversight and therefore believed that the speed of light in glass is higher than in air. Huygens' wave theory could not convince him otherwise. Apparently, he trusted the famous Descartes more than the "upstart" Huygens. But why did he, the great mathematician, not check Huygens' conclusions? He could have noticed that the method used by Huygens is equally suitable for "corpuscles", it is only necessary not to talk about the speed of wave propagation, but about the speed of corpuscles. But no, I didn't check it. Or maybe he could not understand how he could not understand Descartes' error? Perhaps he was weak in physics?great mathematician, did not check Huygens' conclusions? He could have noticed that the method used by Huygens is equally suitable for "corpuscles", it is only necessary not to talk about the speed of wave propagation, but about the speed of corpuscles. But no, I didn't check it. Or maybe he could not understand how he could not understand Descartes' error? Perhaps he was weak in physics?great mathematician, did not check Huygens' conclusions? He could have noticed that the method used by Huygens is equally suitable for "corpuscles", it is only necessary not to talk about the speed of wave propagation, but about the speed of corpuscles. But no, I didn't check it. Or maybe he could not understand how he could not understand Descartes' error? Perhaps he was weak in physics?
A mathematician without an understanding of physics will never become famous as a great physicist. Except for the case when he has a person with a physical flair in his advisors. Mathematics is only a tool. The same as the file. You must know how to use any tool. The degree of mastery achieved is different for everyone. There are people who use a file masterly. They become pattern makers or model makers. In some research institutes, they are valued higher than candidates of science. But without the designer, without the author of the idea, the pattern-maker is nothing. Likewise a mathematician. Without understanding physics, he wanders into such a jungle that then he cannot find himself. Einstein, and he was very well versed in delusion, said that mathematics is the best way to lead oneself by the nose. Before starting his work, a mathematician should not only know what to count,but also what should be the result - from the point of view of physics.
Hooke and Newton could be excellent collaborators in this sense. Hooke was a great experimenter. He had a physical sense. But Newton did not know how to be grateful to those who gave him or from whom he borrowed a physical idea. The laws of his people do not allow that. Everything that Newton published, as a rule, became only his personal merit. True, he seemed to understand that he had achieved so much, because he "stood on the shoulders of giants." One of these giants was Hooke. But about the shoulders of giants - this was without mentioning specific personalities. In his writings, he rarely mentioned those whose physical ideas he processed mathematically. But in any case, all achievements became his personal achievements.
At the time of Galileo, the calculus of the infinitesimal was not yet known. Newton mathematically transformed Galileo's laws, made them more modern, and Galileo's laws began to be called Newton's laws. He dealt with the rings of light discovered by Hooke, and these rings became known as Newton's rings. As we can see, Newton was "deeply grateful" not only to Descartes, but also to everyone with whom he was confronted by his creative activity. He always stayed the way he was.
Hooke repeatedly turned to Newton with a request to study the theory of gravitation and provided him with his ideas in writing. But Newton was at odds with Hooke. In addition, if you immediately agree in such a situation, then you will have to take this Hooke as a co-author ?! Or at least express gratitude to him ?! Newton was a deeply religious person. His ingratitude could be due to purely religious considerations. His main research activity was not devoted to mathematics or physics at all, but to theology. Naturally, he followed the religion-Law of his people. It seems to be the only religion that teaches pretense and deception. According to this religion, he did not have the right to speak out positively about any person who did not belong to this religion, unless this was required by keeping the secret about their true views and intentions. Following the instructions of this religion was second nature to him. Perhaps that is why he tackled this issue many years later, supposedly completely on his own, and spread the rumor that he knew about his findings back in his student years. Now, in his mature years, he only worked on his ideas. And his niece, who was supposedly also his mistress, told everyone that the idea came to him when an apple fell on him. Historians - they know everything. Not only about apples, but also about nieces. But tell me please, if all the ideas belonged to one Newton, then why make excuses and blame the birth of an idea on an innocent apple? Was this not a recognition that for no apparent reason Newton himself would not have thought of this?supposedly completely independently, and spread a rumor that he knew about his findings as a student. Now, in his mature years, he only worked on his ideas. And his niece, who was supposedly also his mistress, told everyone that the idea came to him when an apple fell on him. Historians - they know everything. Not only about apples, but also about nieces. But tell me please, if all the ideas belonged to one Newton, then why make excuses and blame the birth of an idea on an innocent apple? Was this not a recognition that for no apparent reason Newton himself would not have thought of this?supposedly completely independently, and spread a rumor that he knew about his findings as a student. Now, in his mature years, he only worked on his ideas. And his niece, who was supposedly also his mistress, told everyone that the idea came to him when an apple fell on him. Historians - they know everything. Not only about apples, but also about nieces. But tell me please, if all the ideas belonged to one Newton, then why make excuses and blame the birth of an idea on an innocent apple? Was this not a recognition that for no apparent reason Newton himself would not have thought of this?when an apple fell on him. Historians - they know everything. Not only about apples, but also about nieces. But tell me please, if all the ideas belonged to one Newton, then why make excuses and blame the birth of an idea on an innocent apple? Was this not a recognition that for no apparent reason Newton himself would not have thought of this?when an apple fell on him. Historians - they know everything. Not only about apples, but also about nieces. But tell me please, if all the ideas belonged to one Newton, then why make excuses and blame the birth of an idea on an innocent apple? Was this not a recognition that for no apparent reason Newton himself would not have thought of this?
The idea of gravity could have come to mind from knowing the fact that the Earth (and other planets) revolves around the Sun in a closed trajectory. In the simplest case, it is a circle. If the body moves in a circle, this means that it is acted upon by a force directed towards the center of the circle. In the center of the circle is the Sun. Hence it is clear that the Earth is attracted by the Sun. No other proof is needed. But in order to guess before this, you need to know in advance that uniform movement along a circle is a movement with acceleration towards the center of the circle. After that one could use the famous Galileo's law … sorry, I, of course, wanted to say Newton's law, and the problem is proved. Newton proved the fact of attraction very tediously and on many pages. Of course, this consideration is purely mathematical and says nothing about what caused this force. But this was not explained by Newton in his long arguments.
Newton flatly refused to mention Hooke's merits in his book. The proof belongs to him and therefore he is the only author.
By the way, one of the historians of physics wrote that at that time the idea of gravitation was in the air. Perhaps he was referring to Hooke's statements, which were communicated not only to Newton personally, but also to the academy many years before the appearance of Newton's book, and therefore were known to many. There was no need for an apple to fall on Newton's head. Descartes spoke about gravitation. He suggested that the ebb and flow are associated with gravity. It was this fact that Newton also calculated. And who knows, without Descartes's idea, he might not have guessed about it.
Since the time of Newton, haven't great mathematicians become great thinkers?
Johann Kern, Stuttgart, Germany