Giora Hon

In 1646, Francesco Fontana (1580–1656) published his Novae Coelestium Terresriumque Rerum Observationes which includes discussions of optical properties of systems of lenses, e.g., telescope and microscope. Our study of the Novae Coelestium shows that the advance Fontana made in optics could not have been accomplished on the basis of the traditional spectacle optics which was the dominant practice at his time. Though spectacle and telescope making share the same optical elements, improving eyesight and constructing telescope are different practices based on different principles. The production of powerful astronomical telescopes demanded objective lenses with much longer focal length and eyepiece lenses with much shorter focal length than the range of focal length of lenses used for spectacles, respectively. Moreover, higher standard of precision and purity of the glass was required. The transition from the practice by which optical components were chosen from ready-made spectacle lenses to lenses which were produced according to predetermined specifications (e.g., calculation of focal length) was anything but straight forward. We argue that Fontana developed the optical knowledge necessary for improving the performance of optical systems. Essentially, he formulated—based on rich practical experience—a set of rules of calculation by which optical properties of a lens system could be determined and adjusted as required.

We call attention to the historical fact that the meaning of symmetry in antiquity—as it appears in Vitruvius’s De architectura—is entirely different from the modern concept. This leads us to the question, what is the evidence for the changes in the meaning of the term symmetry, and what were the different meanings attached to it? We show that the meaning of the term in an aesthetic sense gradually shifted in the context of architecture before the image of the balance was attached to the term in the middle of the 18th century and well before the first modern scientific usage by Legendre in 1794.Keywords: Symmetry; Vitruvius; Claude Perrault; Charles-Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu; Balance in architecture.

This volume contains essays that examine the optical works of Giambattista Della Porta, an Italian natural philosopher during the Scientific Revolution. Coverage also explores the science and technology of early modern optics. Della Porta's groundbreaking book, Magia Naturalis, includes a prototype of the camera. Yet, because of his obsession with magic, Della Porta's scientific achievements are often forgotten. As the contributors argue, his work inspired such great minds as Johanes Kepler and Francis Bacon. After reading this book, researchers, historians, and students will have a better appreciation of this influential scientist. They will also gain a greater understanding of an important period in the history of optics. Readers will learn about Della Porta's experimental method, a process governed by the protocols, aims, and theoretical assumptions of natural magic. Coverage also discusses the material properties and limitations of optical technology in the early 17th century, based on a recently discovered Dutch spyglass. It also demonstrates how diagrams were instrumental in the discovery of the sine law of refraction. In addition, the book includes an in-depth analysis of previously untranslated Latin sources. This makes the material useful to historians of optics unfamiliar with the language. More than 70 illustrations complement the text.

The claim that Galileo Galilei transformed the spyglass into an astronomical instrument has never been disputed and is considered a historical fact. However, the question what was the procedure which Galileo followed is moot, for he did not disclose his research method. On the traditional view, Galileo was guided by experience, more precisely, systematized experience, which was current among northern Italian artisans and men of science. In other words, it was a trial-and-error procedure—no theory was involved. A scientific analysis of the optical properties of Galileo’s first improved spyglass shows that his procedure could not have been an informed extension of the traditional optics of spectacles. We argue that most likely Galileo realized that the objective and the eyepiece form a system and proceeded accordingly.

In addition to his scientific achievements, James Clerk Maxwell was an innovator in methodologies in physics. In fact, in his hands methodology and theory mutually inform one another, an aspect of his work that has not been properly appreciated. We examine closely from a methodological perspective Maxwell’s contributions to electromagnetism and uncover a trajectory of great interest, which we call Maxwell’s methodological odyssey. There are four principal stations along the fifteen-year trajectory of Maxwell’s published writings devoted to electromagnetism. These contributions form a sequence of different methodologies which culminated in 1873 in his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Tracing the path leading to his magnum opus yields novel insights into the various methodologies which Maxwell applied in the course of constructing his epoch-making electrodynamic theory. Indeed, we claim that the framework of the theory is just as important as the empirical facts in this physical domain. Thus, we are persuaded that Maxwell's formulation and application of novel scientific methodologies is no less a feat than proposing a fundamental theory.

According to the received view, the first spyglass was assembled without any theory of how the instrument magnifies. Galileo, who was the first to use the device as a scientific instrument, improved the power of magnification up to 30 times. How did he accomplish this feat? Galileo does not tell us what he did. We hold that such improvement of magnification is too intricate a problem to be solved by trial and error, accidentally stumbling upon a complex procedure. We construct a plausibility argument and submit that Galileo had a theory of the telescope. He could develop it by analogical reasoning based on the phenomenon of reflection in mirrors—as it was put to use in surveying instruments—and applied to refraction in sets of lenses. Galileo could appeal to this analogy and assume Della Porta’s theory of refraction. He could thus turn the spyglass into a revolutionary scientific instrument—the telescope.