_A Portion of a spherical Undulation, admitted through an Aperture into
a quiescent Medium, will proceed to be further propagated rectilinearly
in concentric Superficies, terminated laterally by weak and irregular
Portions of newly diverging Undulations._
At the instant of admission, the circumference of each of the
undulations may be supposed to generate a partial undulation, filling
up the nascent angle between the radii and the surface terminating the
medium; but no sensible addition will be made to its strength by a
divergence of motion from any other parts of the undulation, for want
of a coincidence in time, as has already been explained with respect
to the various force of a spherical undulation. If indeed the aperture
bear but a small proportion to the breadth of an undulation, the newly
generated undulation may nearly absorb the whole force of the portion
admitted; and this is the case considered by NEWTON in the Principia.
But no experiment can be made under these circumstances with light, on
account of the minuteness of its undulations, and the interference of
inflection; and yet some faint radiations do actually diverge beyond
any probable limits of inflection, rendering the margin of the aperture
distinctly visible in all directions; these are attributed by NEWTON to
some unknown cause, distinct from inflection; (Optics, Third Book, Obs.
5.) and they fully answer the description of this proposition.
Let the concentric lines in Fig. 1. (Plate I.) represent the
contemporaneous situation of similar parts of a number of successive
undulations diverging from the point A; they will also represent the
successive situations of each individual undulation: let the force
of each undulation be represented by the breadth of the line, and
let the cone of light ABC be admitted through the aperture BC; then
the principal undulations will proceed in a rectilinear direction
towards GH, and the faint radiations on each side will diverge from
B and C as centres, without receiving any additional force from any
intermediate point D of the undulation, on account of the inequality of
the lines DE and DF. But, if we allow some little lateral divergence
from the extremities of the undulations, it must diminish their
force, without adding materially to that of the dissipated light;
and their termination, instead of the right line BG, will assume the
form CH; since the loss of force must be more considerable near to C
than at greater distances. This line corresponds with the boundary
of the shadow in NEWTON’s first observation, Fig. 1; and it is much
more probable that such a dissipation of light was the cause of the
increase of the shadow in that observation, than that it was owing to
the action of the inflecting atmosphere, which must have extended a
thirtieth of an inch each way in order to produce it; especially when
it is considered that the shadow was not diminished by surrounding
the hair with a denser medium than air, which must in all probability
have weakened and contracted its inflecting atmosphere. In other
circumstances, the lateral divergence might appear to increase, instead
of diminishing, the breadth of the beam.
As the subject of this proposition has always been esteemed the most
difficult part of the undulatory system, it will be proper to examine
here the objections which NEWTON has grounded upon it.
“To me, the fundamental supposition itself seems impossible; namely,
that the waves or vibrations of any fluid can, like the rays of
light, be propagated in straight lines, without a continual and very
extravagant spreading and bending every way into the quiescent medium,
where they are terminated by it. I mistake, if there be not both
experiment and demonstration to the contrary.” (Phil. Trans. VII. 5089,
Abr. I. 146. Nov. 1672.)
“Motus omnis per fluidum propagatus divergit a recto tramite in spatia
immota.”
“Quoniam medium ibi,” in the middle of an undulation admitted,
“densius est, quam in spatiis hinc inde, dilatabit sese tam versus
spatia utrinque sita, quam versus pulsuum rariora intervalla; eoque
pacto—pulsus eadem _fere_ celeritate sese in medii partes quiescentes
hinc inde relaxare debent;—ideoque spatium totum occupabunt.—Hoc
experimur in sonis.” (Princip. Lib. II. Prop. 42.)
“Are not all hypotheses erroneous, in which light is supposed to
consist in pression or motion, propagated through a fluid medium?—If
it consisted in pression or motion, propagated either in an instant,
or in time, it would bend into the shadow. For pression or motion
cannot be propagated in a fluid in right lines beyond an obstacle which
stops part of the motion, but will bend and spread every way into the
quiescent medium which lies beyond the obstacle.—The waves on the
surface of stagnating water, passing by the sides of a broad obstacle
which stops part of them, bend afterwards, and dilate themselves
gradually into the quiet water behind the obstacle. The waves, pulses,
or vibrations of the air, wherein sounds consist, bend manifestly,
though not so much as the waves of water. For a bell or a cannon may be
heard beyond a hill, which intercepts the sight of the sounding body;
and sounds are propagated as readily through crooked pipes as straight
ones. But light is never known to follow crooked passages, nor to bend
into the shadow. For the fixed stars, by the interposition of any of
the planets, cease to be seen. And so do the parts of the sun, by the
interposition of the moon, Mercury, or Venus. The rays which pass very
near to the edges of any body, are bent a little by the action of the
body;—but this bending is not towards but from the shadow, and is
performed only in the passage of the ray by the body, and at a very
small distance from it. So soon as the ray is past the body, it goes
right on.” (Optics, Qu. 28.)
Now the proposition quoted from the Principia does not directly
contradict this proposition; for it does not assert that such a motion
must diverge equally in all directions; neither can it with truth be
maintained, that the parts of an elastic medium communicating any
motion, must propagate that motion equally in all directions. (Phil.
Trans. for 1800. p. 109—112.) All that can be inferred by reasoning is,
that the marginal parts of the undulation must be somewhat weakened,
and that there must be a faint divergence in every direction; but
whether either of these effects might be of sufficient magnitude
to be sensible, could not have been inferred from argument, if the
affirmative had not been rendered probable by experiment.
As to the analogy with other fluids, the most natural inference from
it is this: “The waves of the air, wherein sounds consist, bend
manifestly, though not so much as the waves of water;” water being an
inelastic, and air a moderately elastic medium; but ether being most
highly elastic, its waves bend very far less than those of the air, and
therefore almost imperceptibly. Sounds are propagated through crooked
passages, because their sides are capable of reflecting sound, just as
light would be propagated through a bent tube, if perfectly polished
within.
The light of a star is by far too weak to produce, by its faint
divergence, any visible illumination of the margin of a planet
eclipsing it; and the interception of the sun’s light by the moon,
is as foreign to the question, as the statement of inflection is
inaccurate.
To the argument adduced by HUYGENS, in favour of the rectilinear
propagation of undulations, NEWTON has made no reply; perhaps because
of his own misconception of the nature of the motions of elastic
mediums, as dependent on a peculiar law of vibration, which has been
corrected by later mathematicians. (Phil. Trans. for 1800, p. 116.)
On the whole, it is presumed, that this proposition may be safely
admitted, as perfectly consistent with analogy and with experiment.