Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Early Debate Concerning Wave-Theory

  • Chapter
Hegel and Newtonianism

Abstract

1. Newton’s Principia. In 1687 Newton published his work on the Mathematical Principles of Natural Science — it is thus that we may translate its Latin title. By means of the second or force law and the law of universal gravitational attraction, he was able to explain the mechanics of the solar system. It was thus that he established his fame and his authority in the exact sciences. And his fame was such, that until the end of the eighteenth century and beyond, the author himself was as revered as his works.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. In 1704 Newton also derived the sine law of refraction in his Opticks, bk. I, exp. 15 and bk. II, pt. III, prop. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hegel says Newton’s idea of a ray is barbaric, Encyclopedia § 276; MM 9.117; tr. Petry II.17,33; tr. Miller p. 92. Hegel deals with the refraction of light as the second aspect in “the relation of individualized matter to light”, o.c. § 318; MM 9.228, 230ff.; tr. Petry II.125-133; tr. Miller pp. 185-192.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hegel wants to remove from optics all kinds of explanations by means of corpuscles, waves and oscillations. Encyclopedia § 276, MM 9.118; tr. Petry II.19,3; tr. Miller p.93.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hooke, R. 1665, pp. 55-56.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hooke, R. 1665, p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Newton C I.175.370. The letter of 1672 was published in Philosophical Transactions 7 (1672). Cf. what Newton writes in query twenty (1706; 28 in 1717) in his Opticks.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ziggelaar, A. 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hegel discusses double refraction in Encyclopedia § 319; MM 9.239-241; tr. Petry II 133-134; tr. Miller pp. 192-194.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Huygens, C. 1690; Huygens, C. 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Huygens, C. 1690, p. 3; Huygens, C. 1962, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Footnote (c) to Newton’s letter of February 6 1672 to Henry Oldenburg, published in Philosophical Transactions 6 (1671/72), 3075-87. Quoted from Newton C I.106.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Newton C I.370.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Halley, E. 1693.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Malebranche, N. 1945, Discourse xii.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cantor, G.N. 1983, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Malebranche, N. 1946, p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malebranche, N. 1946, p. 161. Hegel accepted that the propagation of light takes time, but suggested that one should not indulge in its spectral consequences for objects in the sky at distances of many light-years. Encyclopedia § 276; MM 9.120-121; tr. Petry II.21.5; tr. Miller p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grimaldi, F.-M. 1665. Hegel mentions diffraction of light in Encyclopedia § 320 (Addition, section γ); MM 9.259; tr. Petry II.151,3-35; tr. Miller pp. 208-209.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grimaldi, F.-M. 1665, bk. I, prop. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stuewer, R. 1970, p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. Hegel’s appraisal of so-called four-sided light-rays, Encyclopedia § 278; MM 9.124; tr. Petry II.23,27-40; tr. Miller p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cantor, G.N. 1983, p. 31. Hegel rejects the “physics of light particles” in Encyclopedia § 276; MM 9.119; tr. Petry II.17,30-18,1; tr. Miller p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Euler, L. 1746. See also Euler, L. 1812, letters CXXXIII-CXXXVI, pp. 86-104.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Euler, L. 1746, ch. 1, § 3, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Euler, L. 1746, p. XIV.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Euler, L. 1746, p. LIV.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goethe, J. 1962, p. 222.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Euler, L. 1746, ch. 2 § 52, p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Euler, L. 1746, ch. 4 § 76, pp. 27-28.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Steffens, H. 1977, p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Robison, J. 1788, pp. 97-98. Quoted from Steffens, H. 1977, p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Steffens, H. 1977, p. 67. According to Hegel neither Newton’s theory nor the wave-theory and Euler’s ether, are of any use for knowledge concerning light: Encyclopedia § 276; MM 9.120; tr. Petry II.20,10-21; tr. Miller, p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Young, Th. 1800, § II, p. 112 and § VI, pp. 118-119.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Young, Th. 1800, § X, pp. 125, 127.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Young, Th. 1800, § X, p. 128 and § XI, pp. 130-131. Hegel knows that “shade in light” (destructive interference?) is supposed to be a triumph and advance upon Newton in his days, but maintains that it is not physics since it is not empirical: Encyclopedia § 276 (Addition); MM 9.120; tr. Petry II.20,13-19; tr. Miller p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brougham, H. 1804, p. 97. Quoted from Steffens, H. 1977, p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Brougham, H. 1802, p. 99. Quoted from Young, Th. 1855, p. 205.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Malus, E. 1810.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Malus, E. 1810, § 54, p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Malus, E. 1810, § 54, p. 240. Hegel refers, in connection with the “clumsy concept” of the polarization of light by means of two mirrors, to Goethe: Encyclopedia § 278; MM 9.123-124; tr. Petry II.23,25; tr. Miller p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Quarterly Review Nov. 1809. Quoted from Young, Th. 1972, p. 233.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Verdet, E. 1872, p. 351.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. August Ziggelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Michael John Petry

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ziggelaar, A. (1993). The Early Debate Concerning Wave-Theory. In: Petry, M.J. (eds) Hegel and Newtonianism. Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 136. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1662-6_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1662-6_31

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4726-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-1662-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation