Newton's Law of Forces Which Are Inversely As The Mass

Newton’s law of forces which are inversely
as the mass: a suggested interpretation of

his later efforts to normalise
a mechanistic model of optical dispersion
by
z. BECHLER*
“This principle of nature being very remote from the conceptions of Philos-
ophers I forbore to describe it in that Book [the Principia] least I should be
accounted an extravagant freak & so prejudice my Readers against all those
things wCh were ye main designe of the Book.”
(Newton in a projected ‘Conclusion’ [c. 16931 to the Opticks, ULC. Add.
3970, f. 33Sr.)
Contents
0. Preface
1. Introduction
1.1 The general structure and chronology of the queries
1.2 Three changes in the queries of 1717
2. The argument for the corpuscularity of light and its dangers
2.1 The strangeness of micro-forces
2.2 Chromatic dispersion and the need for mass dependent accelera-
tions
3. Newton’s early attempts to normalise strange forces
3.1 The inverse mass force of Q (22)
3.2 The omission of gravitation and the difference between magnetism
and gravity in the Principia
3.3 The mechanism of inverse mass forces in the projected fourth
book of the Opticks in 1692
3.4 The mechanism of inverse mass force in Q (22)
* The Department of History and Philosophy of Science, The Hebrew University. Jerusa-
lem, Israel.
Newton’s law of forces which are inversely as the mass 185
4. Drafting Q (22) in 1706

4.1 light as the active principle
4.2 The curvature argument
4.3 Drafting the law of inverse mass force
4.4 Hauksbee’s experiments for defining the inverse mass force
5. Normalising the ether and the genesis of Query 21 of 1717
5.1 The inconsistency of the concept of ether
5.2 A new function for the curvature argument and the appearance
Iof gravity as inverse mass force
5.3 The new function for the law of inverse mass force
5.4 Cancelling the curvature argument
5.5 Summary and suggestion: the purpose of the law of inverse mass
force was to normalise the mass model of dispersion
6. Reconsiderations: Inverse mass gravitation and electricity unexcited
6.1 Gravitation as an inverse-mass force
6.2 Breaking away from the Principia?
6.3 The electric analogy of Q 21
6.4 The fundamental micro-force : why electricity?
7. Summary
8. Notes
9. Referenees
Preface
In this article I give my interpretation of certain changes which Newton
introduced into the queries of his Latin Optice in 1706 and his revised
Opricks in 1717. These are mainly concerned with.the nature of the short-
range forces acting in the sub visible realm, and I suggest that they re-
present an effort on his part to find an explanation of dispersion in terms
of a mechanistic model. Since this model was extremely strange, this
explanation eventually sought to reduce its outlandishness by proclaiming
a new universal law of force. I base my argument on a careful analysis
of Newton’s autograph drafts (ULC. Add. 3970. 3, f. 292v and 3970. 9,
f. 621r see Figs. 1 and 2) which preceded the published version of this
law.0
186 Z. Bechler
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
1. Introduction
2.1 The general structure and chronology of the queries
Composed and published in three batches in the 1704 English princeps
edition, the 1706 Latin Optice, and the 1717 revised Opticks, the queries
which conclude Newton’s Opticks fall into three groups, dealing with
three topics, and with three differing aims. The whole idea of appending
such queries to the Opticks sprang from the deficient form of its last
book, “Book three, part I”, which deals with diffraction phenomena.
This book, by far the most neglected of all, contains only a set of eleven
“Observations”, with no “Propositions” or any attempt to draw con-
clusions therefrom. There are several signs to show that it was very
hastily composed, and that its theoretical conclusions were not yet clear
to Newton. In composing the book, however, he had a very clear aim
in mind, and these conclusions were, as usual, quite definite from the
start; yet they could not be “derived” from the “Observations”, and
could not, therefore be presented as general “Propositions”. In 1704,
therefore, Newton chose to propose the conclusions of his diffraction
experiments as a set of sixteen queries, proposing the ideas of the mutual
action of matter and light, either at a distance or through the mechanism
of some vibrating medium.
Two years later the Opticks was translated into Latin and for this
1706 edition Newton added another seven queries, originally numbered-
17 to 23. Their object was to present an extended argument, based pri-
marily on optical phenomena, against the wave theory of light. Here the
main idea to be impressed on the reader was that of the light corpuscle
as a tiny material particle endowed with several “original properties”,
among these not only geometrical properties but also such dynamical
ones as were pertinent to the various kinds of forces associated with it.
This dynamical side was discussed in the huge concluding Query 23 on
the basis of chemical phenomena.
These seven final queries remained the high-water mark of Newton’s
argumentation against a wave mechanism, and so when ten years later
he prepared his 1717 English edition, Newton decided to leave these,
now renumbered 25-31, as the conclusion of the book, but in between
he inserted new queries, 17-24, which dealt with the freshly reintroduced
idea of ether. In short, the Opticks’ queries are roughly separable into
three groups, dealing respectively with the idea of mutual action of light
188 2.Bechler
and matter (queries 1-16 of 1704), with light as a stream of particles

possessed of various original properties (queries 17-23 in the 1706, after-
wards 25-31), and with the properties of ether (queries 17-24 of the 1717
editon).
In what follows I shall use the following notation: “Q 22” will denote
query 22 of the final 1717 edition; “Q 30 (22)” will denote query 30 of
the 1717 edition, previously numbered 22 in the 1706 edition; “Q (22)”
will signify query 22 of the 1706 edition.
I .2 Three changes in the queries of I71 7

In preparing the final 1717 edition, Newton made very few changes1 in
the previous queries. Most of these, but not all, are perfectly understand-
able to us. One of the most interesting but least understood additions is
a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of Q 31 (23). This paragraph
starts with the “certain powers, virtues, or forces,” which “small particles
of bodies” have, and by which they act not only on the rays of light but
also on one another. We are already acquainted, it goes on to say, with
three kinds of macro-forces, namely, the gravitational, magnetic, and
electric,
and these instances shew the tenor and course of nature, and make it not improbable
but that there may be more attractive powers than these. For nature is very conso-
nant and conformable to herself. (1231 p. 376)
After further stressing the positivist content of the term “attraction” and
the crucial importance of experiment in theory making, the paragraph
ended in 1706 with these words:
The attractions of gravity, magnetism, and electricity, reach to very sensible dis-
tances, and so have been observed by vulgar eyes, and there may be others which
reach to so small distances as hitherto escape observation.
In 1717 Newton added the phrase:

and perhaps electrical attraction may reach to such small distances, even without
being excited by friction.
No one has suggested till now why Newton favoured electricity as a

micro-force. It is today well known that he came to regain his confidence
in an ether as a result of the experiments which Hauksbee performed
before the Royal Society in the years before 1706. However, all of Hauks-
bee’s electrical experiments depended, naturally, on friction. Why did

Newton decide to conclude from these that non-frictional electricity
existed at a11, and that it acted constantly in the micro-realm? The p u d e
is all the more acute if we remind ourselves that Newton, in fact, believed
that this “unexcited” micro-electricity was the fundamental and universal
force of the micro-realm. Why he chose electricity for this important
role rather than gravitation or magnetism has been hitherto unexamined.
Another change-one of omission, not addition-which Newton made
in the 1706 edition while preparing it in 1717 remains a further untouched
problem. A whole page and more of the 1706 edition Q 30 (22) was then
left out. Owing to its relative unavailability, I produce the passage whole
(its English version will be found on pp. 196, 201):
Jam quidem eorum corporum, quae sunt ejusdem generis & virtutis quanto est
quodque minutius, tanto fortiorem habet, pro ratione magnitudinis suae, Vim At-
trahmtem. Fortior comperta est ea Vis in parvis Magnetibus, pro ratione ponderis
sui, quam in majoribus: Nam parvorum Magnetum particulae, cum sint inter sc
proximiores, vires w a s facilius in unum conjungunt. Quocirca Radii Luminis. cum
sint Corporum omnium (quod sciamus) minutissima, expectandum erit ut Vires
Attrahentes habere reperiantur omnium fortissimas. Quam fortes autem eae sint,
regula sequente colligi poterit. Attractio radii Luminis, pro quantitate materiae
s u e , est ad gravitatem quam corpus aliquod projectum habet pro quantitate itidem
materiae suae, in composita ratione velocitatis radii Luminis a d velocitatem corporis
illius projecti, & flexurae seu curvaturae lineae quam radius describit in loco Re-
fractionis ad flexuram seu curvaturam lineae quam id corpus projectum describit;
ita videlicet, si Inclinatio radii ad superficiem refringentem, eadem sit quae est
corporis illius projecti ad Horizontem. Atque ex hac quidem proportione colligo.
attractionem radiorum luminis esse amplius 1000,000,000,000,000partibus majorem
quam Gravitatem corporum in supedcie Terrae, pro quantitate materiae quae eis
inest; si scilicet Lumen e Sole in Terram circiter septem vel octo minutorum spatio
pervenit. Et in ips0 radiorum Contactu, eorum vis multo adhuc major esse potest.
Tanta autem vis in radiis, non potest non ingentes effectus obtinere in illis mat-
eriae particulis, quibuscum in corporibus componendis conjuncti sint ; ad effici-
endum, ut particulae illae se invicem attrahant, & inter se moveantur. Quae res ut
melius intelligatur, Quaestionem sequentem proponam. (221 p. 321
Before going to analyse this considerable omission, I wish to draw at-

tention to a very curious sentence which first made its appearance in the
1706 Q 29 (21). This reads as follows:
Nothing more is requisite for producing all the variety of Colours, and degrees of
Refrangibility, than that the rays of light be bodies of different sizes, the least of
which may take violet the weakest and darkest of the colours, and be more easily
13 CENTAURUS XVIll
190 2.Bechler
diverted by refracting surfaces from the right course; and the rest as they are bigger
and bigger, may make the stronger and more lucid colours, blue, green, yellow, and
red, and be more and more difficultly diverted. ([23] p. 372, [22] p. 311)
The model here suggested is, of course, manifestly invalid. A purely

distance-dependent force, such as the refractive force was always (both in
the Principia and the Opticks) conceived to be, and which the gravita-
tional attraction most obviously modelled, could not produce a mass-
dependent acceleration. In the context of the Principia’s mechanics, this
new 1706 dispersion model was a curious aberration. It was also solidly
couched, for in none of the editions which he later published (in 1717
and 1718 and 1721) did Newton amend it. Why and how could Newton
allow this model, apparently so outrageously wrong, to survive?
I shall suggest here an interpretation that purports to connect these
three seemingly editorial acts: the addition of the passage about the
electric micro-force in Q 31 (23), the continuation of the mass-model of
dispersive refraction in Q 29 (21), and the deletion of the long passage
in Q 30 (22). This will then be seen to mirror the probable inter-connection
between three corresponding avenues of development in Newton’s thought
after the publication of the 1687 Principia viz: his refinement of the
mechanistic model of dispersion, exploration of the nature of micro-
forces, and examination of the role of electricity in the micro-realm.
2. The argument for the corpuscularity of light and its dangers

2.1 The strangeness of micro-forces
The view that forces and motions of the micro-realm were entirely differ-
ent from those encountered in the macro-realm forced itself upon Newton
when he came to compose a detailed and sustained argument for the
corpuscularity of light. To this end was directed the sequence of six
queries in 1706. But from the start it was clear that it would be necessary
to supply a fairly coherent answer to the problem of the source and
manner of action of the rays of light if the argument about their corpus-
cularity was to hold at all. Newton began his new queries with a detailed
account of double refraction. This phenomenon, whose explanation in
terms of wave theory was Huygens’ great success in his 1690 Trait6 de la
Zumiere, was to Newton only a most clear vindication of the corpuscularity
of light and, far from being the strong point of wave theory, was in fact
its outright refutation: the two refracted beams of double refraction were
“polarized”, but waves, (and Newton was referring to Huygens’ longi-
tudinal waves) could not possibly be polarized. On the other hand, it was
easy to conceive of particles as polarized, simply because they had sides
which could have various different properties. And all of a sudden New-
ton was in the midst of an argument which implied a new, strange kind
of refractive forces. For here the extraordinary ray was refracted even
when it was perpendicularly incident upon the medium, which meant
that not all the refractive forces of the medium were directed perpendic-
ularly to its surface, some of them having a parallel component. The
difficulty here stemmed not only from the fact that the reduction of
Snell’s law to mechanics- another major argument for the corpuscularity
of light-was wholly based on the necessary presupposition of perpendic-
ular refractive forces, but also from the problem posed by such differentia-
tion: why was only one part of the original ray refracted from the per-
pendicular? This led Newton to suggest that only those corpuscles were
refracted which had their correct side oriented in the right direction. And
at once he had a new kind of forces on his hands, namely, forces which
depended on the spatial orientation of the particles on which they acted.
The best Newton could do was to suggest a polarity similar to the mag-
netic one. But this he did merely as a rough analogy. What was in his
mind was the necessity of considering these micro-forces as a wholly new
kind of force. Thus, his argument for the corpuscularity of light evolved
so as to enforce an apparent break with the “analogy of nature”. This
ineluctible recognition of the novel character of these micro-forces threw
Newton at once into the hands of the vilest of the theoretician’s gambits,
the ad-hoc argument, against which he fought all his scientific life.
To save the plausibility of his argument for the corpuscularity of light,
Newton had to reduce the degree of ad-hocness of the model of the new
macro-forces and their interaction with light corpuscles, Newton’s way
of achieving this was to show how this novel character of the micro-
forces could well be a new organization of simple, old fashioned forces.
The “analogy of nature” could then be reinstated as the keystone of his
methodological ruIe, and the whole corpuscularity argument would then
regain its logical respectability.
Following the four double-refraction queries (Q 25 (17)-Q 28 (20))
come the three concluding ones which undertake subtly to underpin this
new argument: Micro-forces may look very strange, but they can be
13’
192 Z.Bechler
viewed also as regular forces freshly reorganized. Q 29 (21) is a long

argument for the existence of “original properties” in light rays and for
their interpretation as supporting the corpuscularity of these rays: Ori-
ginal, or constant, properties could belong only to material particles.
And in this context and capacity the next strange phenomenon of optics
is introduced, namely, chromatic dispersion and its strange mass-model.
It is highly important to review now the implications which this model
had in Newton’s eyes concerning the novelty of the micro-forces.
2.2 Chromatic dispersion and the need for mass-dependent accelerations

In section XIV of the first book of the Principia, in Proposition 91,
Newton showed that light would obey Snell’s law of sines if it was a
stream of particles attracted continuously throughout its range of activity
by a force in the refracting medium which is (a) perpendicular to the
refracting surface and (b) a function of the distance over which it acts.
This was Newton’s mechanistic reduction of Snell’s law, and it was much
more than a repetition of Descartes’ “proof”. Descartes had shown no
Vr
more than that from the two assumptions vi sini = V r sinr and - = const,
vi
(in which vt, vs, are the velocities of the incident and refracted rays re-
spectively, inclined at the incidence and refraction angles i and r to the
sin i
normal to the surface), it followed that -= const, and this meant that
sinr
once it was assumed that (a) only the velocity components normal to
the surface underwent any change and (b) the ratio of the incident
and refraction velocities remained always the same constant for a given
medium, then Snell’s law would follow.
But this was very little once a theory of kinetics and dynamics was
developed. For now the question had to be asked, were these two assump-
tions theoretically possible, consistent, and in that case, were they both
necessary? In other words, the pertinent question now came to be-what
was the exact mechanism that could entail these two conditions?
Newton showed, in fact, that condition (a) was entailed by assuming
the refracting force to act only perpendicularly to the surface, and that
condition (b) was not needed at all for the reduction. Snell’s law was
Newton’slaw of forces which are inversely as the mass 193
the result of condition (a) together with the weak assumption that force
was distance-dependent. Condition (b) then followed as a consequent
theorem. But something else had to be assumed instead, something which
Newton felt reluctant to admit though it was the central theoretic result
sin i
of this reduction. This was that in order to derive the constancy of -,
sin r
sin i
the constancy of vi had to be assumed. In other words -was a function
sin r
of vi. The reduction in the Principia also showed, implicitly but clearly
enough, what exactly was this function of vi. This result had a far reaching
significance for one of the most painful failures of Newton’s whole
optical theory, namely, his model of chromatic dispersion.2
A model of dispersion had to provide an answer to one question. Given
the seven indices of refraction of the seven basic colours for a given
medium, and given the index of refraction of one colour for another
medium, what would be the indices of refraction of all the rest of
the remaining colours in this new medium? Any optics that pretended
to mathematize the science of colours and render it “as certain as any
other part of that science”, as Newton’s optics did, had to consider this a
vital problem.
Now, the function f(vi) which resulted from the Principia’s reduction
of SneIl’s law very naturally connected the various constants of dispersion
with the various incident velocities vf,so that assuming these velocities in
air to be constants, the function f(vS determined immediately the model
of dispersion. Let us call this “the velocity model of dispersion”. Now,
it appears that when Newton decided in 1687 and later to ignore this
velocity model in spite of .the strong suggestion in its favour which was
implicit in the Principia’s reduction he knew quite well what he was
doing. As a matter of fact, he had previously used that velocity model
and was now fully assured that it was a complete failure. The velocity
model fitted only two of the experimental cases known. And so, the
Principia’s reduction, entailing as it did the velocity model of dispersion,
was also a most telling witness that something was wrong with that
reduction. However, what this could be was difficult to say. Given the
standard type of distance-dependent forces analysed in the Principia, the
velocity model was an almost necessary consequence. So Newton simply
kept silent about it. But in 1691, when he began to prepare his Opticks
194 2.Bechler
for publication, he asked Flamsteed, very discreetly and vaguely, whether

he had ever noticed a change of colour during the eclipses of Jupiter’s
satellites. The purpose of the question is now clear: The existence of
such an effect could be taken as a confirmation of the velocity model.
Newton, however, preferred to be silent and vague about the intent of
his question, and when the somewhat perplexed Flamsteed assured him
that no such effect ever took place, he let the whole matter rest. He
began now to look out for another dispersion model founded upon a
dispersive parameter other than velocity, and all the while he was lilled
with the knowledge that the Principia’s reduction was wrong in some
very fundamental a ~ p e c t . ~
There was only one other mechanistic parameter left that could be
considered for such a role, and that was the mass of the particles of light.
sin i
Using this, the model would have to show that - = f(mi), that is,
sinr
that the several differing refractions of different colours were caused by the
various masses of the particles of the various colours. This meant that
the accelerations of the particles on being refracted had to be dependent
in some way on their masses. In its turn, this had to presuppose a new
type of force whose intensity per unit mass is not only distance-dependent
f
but also mass-dependent (that is, - = a(mi) with a some function of
mi
the mass I Y I ~ of the accelerated particles). When the Opticks was first
published in 1704 Newton was not yet prepared to propose such a model,
but by 1706 he published it, as we have seen, in Q (21) as a part of his
argument for the corpuscularity of light, established there from necessarily
assumed, “original”, constant properties in light rays. In fact he intended
at first to present the mass model, outrageous as it was, as the only
consistent model possible, since mass alone, unlike velocity, could be
counted as an “original property”. In an early version of Q (21) Newton
had written (ULC. Add. 3970 f. 291r):
Colours and refractions depend not on new modificationsof light but on the original
& unchangable properties of its rays & such properties are best conserved in bodies
projected. Pressions & motions are apt to receive new modifications in passing
through several mediums but the properties of bodies projected will scarce be
altered thereby. Nothing more is requisite for ye diversity of colours & degrees of
.
refrangibility then that the rays be bodies of different sizes. . .
In sequel he then went on to propound the rest of the mass model.

Newton’s law of forces which are inversely ar the mass 195
So now again, as before with double refraction, the argument for the
corpuscularity of light clearly and very quickly implied some apparent
break in the “analogy of nature”. Newton set out to mend this break
and to suggest how the new micro-forces might well be, in fact, merely
the usual well-known forces newly organized.
A word about the terminology to be used here. The term “intensity of
force” is used here in its usual technical meaning: where, as is customary,
we write Newton’s second law of motion in the form f = ma, the inten-
f
sity of the force f is a = - m
or the force acting per unit mass. On the
other hand, Newton himself used “force” indiscriminately to denote both
f and a. Thus, he makes no terminological distinction between the total
mM
gravitational force f = - r2
acting on m and emanating from M, and
f M
the intensity - = - of this force acting on a unit mass of m. This
m r2
may become a source of confusion, for another concept which will come
f
to play a central role here is - Newton’s “force of a body in propor-
mM’
tion to its bulk”. It should be borne in mind that this ratio is, even in
its dimensions, quite distinct from “intensity”. To avoid a profusion of
f
terms, we shall designate the proportion -by the awkward phrase “the
mM
ratio of force to mass”, but it must never be forgotten that this is not
“intensity” in any proper sense, but rather intensity per unit mass of
the acting body.
3. Newton’s earZy attempts to normalise strange forces

3.1 The inverse-massforce of Q (22)
The suppressed part of Q (22) was its concluding argument, aimed to
present a case for the transmutability of light into matter. Newton’s
purpose was to demonstrate the high intensity of the forces acting on a
corpuscle of light to curve its path. The immensely high power of such
refractive forces (1018 times greater than that of terrestrial gravitation)
196 Z.Bechler
suggested that they might be strong enough to transmute one species of

matter into another.
The argument opens, therefore, with an announcement of a new law
of nature connecting the “bulk” of any body and the intensity of the
forces which it exchanges with its surroundings. It is proposed as a uni-
versal law holding in both the observable and the sub-observable realms,
and is followed by an argument from analogy (I shall use Newtons’
original English version (ULC. Add. 3970 f. 259’) rather than Samuel
Clarke’s published Latin translation) :
Now in bodies of the same kind & vertue attraction is strongest in the smallest
bodies in proportion to their bulk. It is found stronger in small magnets for their
weight then in great ones.
Restating this law, and taking f to stand for the force of attraction of
f
the mass m, we may say that the law states that - is inversely related
m
f
to my that is - = p(;) in which p is some function. Thus the ratio
m
f
of force to mass - is greater as the mass m is smaller.
m
3.2 The omission of gravitation as it refutes to the distinction between

magnetism and gravity in the Principia
A feature worth noticing in this announcement is the poverty of the
analogy involved, based as it is on a mere single obscure case, with ab-
sence of any mention of the most familiar force, namely, gravitation.
The reason for this conspicuous omission may be tentatively gathered
from the definitive statement of his view regarding the difference between
magnetism and gravity which Newton gave in the 1687 Principia’s Cor. 4
(which became Cor. 5 in all later editions) to Prop. VI of the third book.
That corollary is closely related to the present issue, in that one of the
characterizingfeatures it founds its argument upon is the inverse relation-
ship between force and mass in magnets:
Cor. 5. The power of gravity is of a different nature from the power of magnetism.
For the magnetic attraction is not as the matter attracted. Some bodies are at-
tracted more by the magnet, others less; most bodies not at all. The power of
magnetism, in one and the same body, may be increased and diminished; and is
sometimes far stronger, for the quantity of matter, than the power of gravity; and
in receding from the magnet, decreases not in duplicate, but almost in the triplicate
proportion of the distance, as nearly as I could judge from rude observation.
([25] Vol. I1 p. 225)
This may help to explain why gravitation was not added to magnetism
as a second analogic instance in Q (22) :The sequence of propositions VI-
VIII into which Cor. 5 is inserted develops an argument that in gravita-
tion force and mass are strictly proportional. We shall presently see that
Newton came eventually to change his view on this point, but in 1706
it was too early for that.
Note should be taken now of the “triplicate proportion of the distance”
which concludes this Cor. 5 and which was introduced only in the second
edition of 1713. In the first edition the corollary ended with the following
words :4
The magnetic force is by far greater for the quantity of matter than the gravita-
tional force; moreover it may be intended and remitted in the same body; in
receding from the magnet it surely decreases in a ratio of the distance greater than
the duplicate; because the force is by far stronger on contact than is the case with
attracting bodies which are very little separated from their neighbours.
3.3 The mechanism of inverse mass forces in the projected fourth book of
the Opticks in I692
The next suggestion of the mechanism at work in creating these inverse-
mass forces happens in a draft, written around 1692, for the “fourth
book concerning the nature of light & ye power of bodies to refract &
reflect it” which was at that period planned to conclude the Opticks. New-
ton intended to close this fourth book with a “conclusion” consisting of
a set of five “hypotheses”. The first of these was to be the following:
(ULC.Add. 3970, f. 336’).
The ConcInsion
Hypoth. 1. The particles of bodies have certain spheres of activity wth in wCh they
attract or shun one another. For ye attractive vertue of the whole magnet is com-
posed of ye attractive vertues of ail its particles & the like is to be understood of
the attractive vertues of electrical & gravitating bodies. And besides these the
particles of bodies may be endued W‘h others not yet known to us. For if they have
any forces decreasing in any ratio greater than the quadruplicate one of the distance
from their centers, they may attract one another very strongly & yet great bodies
composed of such particles shall not attract one another sensibly.
198 Z.Bechler
The core of this “Hypothesis 1” was an argument that the failure of

macroscopic bodies to exhibit any observable attraction even when in
direct contact with each other could be quite reasonably reconciled with
the assumption that the particles of these bodies act on each other with
forces that are exceedingly intense: this might be simply because the
range of their high intensity could be extremely short.
I propose the following mechanism as a plausible interpretation of
Newton’s intention: if the range of the particle’s force is of the order of
magnitude of the particles’ radii, the particles themselves would cohere
very strongly by being situated within the high intensity range of their
neighbouring particles. At the same time the resultant of these compo-
nent forces would be hardly “sensible” at any point outside this short
range of high intensity on account of the high exponent (greater than four)
of the distance. This would be a kind of screening effect, in which the
bulk of particles would screen their neighbours’ forces on account of
their short range.
Now, this model could imply a highly significant result, namely, the
non-direct proportionality between the resultant intensity of these forces
and the mass of the composite body. For as the region of high intensity
of the resultant force would be situated close to the outer shell of the
body’s particles, its intensity would be determined mainly by these outer
particles, while the inner particles would not contribute appreciably. In
this manner, the resultant force of the body would be dependent on the
number of particles in the outer shells only, while the rest of the particles
would then serve as mere inert mass ballast. In such a case, the resultant
micro-force would not be directly proportional to the mass of the body,
and the ratio of this force to this mass would be inversely related to this
mass.
We have seen that the inter-connection between short range, high in-
tensity on contact, high exponent and inverse proportionality to mass,
was already understood by Newton in the Cor. 5, Prop. VI Book 111 of
the 1687 Principia.
That the idea of such short range forces found its further expression
in the early plan for the “fourth book” of the Opticks is quite appropriate.
The intention of the book was to concentrate on the dynamical mechanism
that causes the main optical phenomena. The idea of such a book was
eventually discarded, but a considerable portion of it was converted into
the book that presently concludes the Opticks, namely, “Book Three,
Part I”. It is now composed of a set of ten “Observations” on the quanti-
tative minutae of diffraction phenomena. The purpose of this book was,
however, far from being a study of diffraction phenomena for its own
sake. Rather, being a descendant of the “fourth book” its purpose was
to investigate the nature of the forces that act between matter and light.
Newton in 1704 gave up the derivation of the laws of these forces from
diffraction phenomena and so the “Observations” are not followed by
any “Propositions”. Instead he proposed the “Queries”, the first five of
which give us a glimpse of the propositions which he at first hoped to
establish.
Now, one of the- features of optical phenomena hardest to reconcile
with Newton’s dynamical conception of the interaction between light and
matter, was the independence of the laws of these phenomena from the
quantity of mass of the acting matter. Thus, in simple refraction the
mass of the refracting medium was of no consequence. This feature,
common to refraction, reflexion and diffraction effects, was, on the face
of it, incompatible with the general structure of Newton’s dynamical
theory at least as exhibited in the Principia, where the gravitational forces
are directly proportional to the quantity of matter involved.
In the light of this difficulty “Hypothesis 1” of the projected “fourth
book” may now be interpreted as an attempt to show that the refractive
force of matter is reconcilable with the “normal” mode of dynamical
action by assuming this force to be an inverse function of some high
power (higher than four) of the distance. In this view it would be a short-
range force, and the only active portion of the refractive body would,
according to the mechanism suggested above, be the matter in its outer
shell. Obviously this mechanism could then readily be used to explain
the independence of the intensity of the refractive force from the mass
of the refractive medium.
It is interesting to note in this context that another proposition which
originally formed part of the projected fourth book of the Opticks was
the one now numbered Prop. X of Book Two, Part I11 ([23] p. 270).
This, as is well known, was there interpolated in the printer’s manuscript
at the last minute. Its assertion that the intensity of the refractive force
depends on the density of the medium is, of course, quite compatible
with the mechanism suggested in “Hypothesis 1” above, since the re-
200 2.Bechter
fracting force would accordingly be proportional to the quantity of matter

contained in the outer shells of the medium, and so proportional to the
density of the medium.
3.4 The mechanism of inverse-massforce in Q (22)

In Q (22) Newton referred to this mechanism connecting short-range
micro-forces with their non-proportionality to mass,in a single terse
sentence that follows on his attempted analogy of magnetism (ibid. f. 2593:
For the parts of small ones being closer together unite their forces more easily.
O n the face of it, this sentence proposes an explanation of the new law
by reason of the greater density of small bodies (“parts. ..being closer
together”). According to this interpretation, the denser packing of the
component particles the smaller the composite body is, which assists an
easier “union” of the forces of the particles.
It must therefore be emphasized that Newton probably did not mean
any such mechanism as would make use of a variable density, propor-
tional to the size of the body. Far from intending the triviality that the
ratio of intensity to mass is directly proportional to the density of this
mass, Newton was, in fact, thinking of bodies of equal density. This will
be seen from a later draft (written in 1715) of Q (22), (see p. 207) and
and should for now be taken as proven.
4. Drafting Q (22) in I706

4.1 Light as the active principle
Initially, the purpose of Q (22) was not simply to argue the transmutability
of light into matter but much more: the query was at first planned to
suggest that light is the active principle of gross matter. The earliest rough
draft of this query (still numbered 21 at this early stage) opens thus:
(ibid. f. 292r).
Qu. 21. Do not bodies & light mutually change into one another. And may not
bodies receive their most active powers from the particles of light of wch (they are
composed cancelled) enter their composition ?
The Latin published version toned this down a bit, the second sentence
reading :5
And may not bodies receive their active powers from the particles of light which
enter their composition?
And then the edition of 1717 further toned down this Latin version
clearing the ground for the new active principle, the ether, finally reading:
Qu. 30. Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not
bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their
composition ? (I231 p. 374)
So, the original intent of the law of inverse mass force as introduced in
the earliest draft version of Q(22) was, again, to propose light for the
role of the active principle. This earliest version of the law was, therefore,
prefaced with the following declaration: (f. 292r)
Now since light is the most active of all bodies known to us, & enters the compo-
sition of all natural bodies, why may it not be the chief principle of activity in them?
Attraction ought to be strongest in the smallest particles in proportion to their
bulk. Tis much stronger in small magnets in proportion to their bulk then in
great ones.
4.2 The curvature argument:

This was now followed immediately (ibid.) by what I shall name, for
lack of a better name, the “curvature argument”:
And considering how much rays of light are bent at their entrance into pellucid
bodies, we may reccon that ye attractive power of a ray of light in proportion to
its (bulk cancelled) body is as much greater then the gravity of a projectile in
proportion to its (bulk cancelled) body as the velocity of the ray of light is greater
then the velocity of the projectile & the bent of the ray greater then the bent of
the line described by the projectile, supposing the inclination of the ray to the
refracting surface & that of ye projectile to ye Horizon to be alike.
The “rule” which is here cited is, of course, wholly wrong since it is based
V
on the incorrect Iaw of force stating that f = - (with V the velocity of
R
the body and R the radius of curvature of its path). As the calculations
on f. 292v show, Newton actually undertook to compare the intensity
of gravity with that of the refracting force by comparing the parabolic
202 2.Bechler
path of a body projected horizontally on the surface of the earth and of

a particle of light refracted at the surface of a dense medium when the
light is incident parallely to the surface. Assuming the horizontal velocity
of the body to be “30 f i n ”” (that is, “30 feet in a second”) the radius
of the curvature of its parabolic path at its vertex is also6 30 feet. The
velocity of the ray’s path he calculated to be 8.28 x 1010miles per 7minutes
(its time of passage from the sun to the earth), and, again assuming the
refracted path at the medium’s interface to be a parabola, and taking
the width of this interface to be lo-sinch, this was at once also the ap-
proximate radius of curvature at this parabola’s vertex. Applying now
V
the erroneous formula f = - he calculated the ratio of the intensities
R’
to be about 1016 to I , and so wrote down in sequel in this early draft:’
And by this proportion I reccon the attractive force of rays of light above ten
hundred thousand thousand millions of times greater then the force where-
by bodies gravitate on ye surface of this earth in proportion to the matter in
them supposing that light comes from the Sun to us in about 7 minutes of an hour.
And so great a force in the rays cannot but have a very great effect upon the particles
of matter wm which they are compounded, for causing them to attract one another.
Let us therefore see if they have not such (mutual cancelled) attractions.
These erroneous results, based on an erroneous formula, were later in-

corporated into the subsequent final draft and therefrom into the pub-
lished Latin edition.*
4.3 Coiistructing the mechanism of inverse-massforce

Meanwhile the preface to these observations was simultaneously, on the
following folio, undergoing several improvements. Here Newton added
after “. . .attraction” the qualification “in bodies of the same kind &
vertue”, and a reference to the mechanism of the inverse-mass force in
regard to magnets (“For the parts of small ones being cIoser together
unite their forces more easily”), both interlineate. The force formula re-
mained the previous erroneous one.
These new additions, especially that respecting the micro-mechanism
for the inverse-mass force, at once suggested to Newton an amplified
version of the mechanism. He left off his revision of the curvature argu-
ment and he wrote the following passage beneath (ibid, f. 292~)):
The smallest particles of matter may cohere by the strongest attraction, and com-
pose bigger particles of weaker vertue & many of these may cohere & compose a
..
bigger particle whose vertue is still weaker & so on for divers successions. .
The continuation of this passage went on to fill all the writing space
remaining on the leaf. It is evident from its argument that Newton drafted
this passage as a result of his contriving the curvature argument. Quite
probably Newton at this stage meant this new formulation of the mecha-
nism for the inverse mass-force to follow the curvature argument and
thus be part of Q (22). He later changed his mind and set some fifteen
pages of the printed edition of 1706 between them, incorporating the
second passage into Q (23) where it was to remain in all future editions
(see p. 394 of the Dover reprint).
As I am arguing for the simultaneous genesis of these two passages
on the basis of their close proximity on ff. 2 9 2 ~and 292’, I propose that
the content of both was suggested to Newton as a result of his conceiving
the mass model of dispersion in Q (21); for the first, rough draft of Q (21)
containing this model occurs on the same folded sheet of paper (now
numbered ff. 291/292). It is highly probable indeed that all passages
(namely, that dealing with this mass model of dispersion, together with
these on the curvature argument and the law of inverse-mass force) were
drafted at one sitting.
In the next and final version of Q (22) (on f. 259r), this initial intention
was abandoned. The convertibility of light into matter was now to figure
alone in the published text, and the main hypothesis of the previous
draft-namely, that light is the active principle of matter-was not to be
mentioned again.Q
4.4 Hauksbee’s experimentsfor defining the inverse-mas force

Newton’s doubts concerning the exact nature of micro-forces and their
relation to mass had inspired Hauksbee’s experiments before the Royal
Society in the years preceding 1706. These experiments were mainly the
manifestation of an effort to arrive at some exact quantitative measure of
micro-force as a function of distance and of mass at very close range.
Since these experiments c o n h e d Newton’s prior views concerning these
forces as being inversely proportional to the mass, he quite naturally
decided to include them in the Opticks of 1717.10
The general tenor of these experiments was, first, that these forces are
204 2.Bechler
inverse-distance in nature, and, second, that they are of high intensity at

short range. Foremost among these experiments was Haukbee’s expen-
ment in which an oil drop put between two glass plates inclined to each
other at a small angle ascended at increasing speed towards the comer
of the angle. The force so accelerating it was measured by inclining the
apparatus towards the horizon till the upward motion of the drop was
arrested, in which position the component of the drop’s gravity along
the direction of the plates was equal to the adhesive force. The accuracy
of result was astonishing. Where the distance between the plates was
about 10-5 of an inch, their adhesive force turned out to be equal to that
of a weight of about 4 lb. (Newton was at later times tempted to increase
this value to a pound). So the smaller the particle, the greater the force
it exerts on its immediate surround,
until the thickness do[es] not exceed that of a single particle of oil. There are
therefore agents in nature able to make the particles of bodies stick together by
very strong attractions. And it is the business of experimental phitosophy to find
them out. (1231 p. 394)
Whence the bulk of a body (such as the oil drop) is inversely related to
the force it exerts. This conclusion strengthened the plausibility of the
mechanism Newton had had in mind in composing “Hypothesis 1” of
his “fourth book”, and which he had afterwards clearly formulated in
Q (23) of 1706. He accordingly inserted a description of all Hauksbee’s
experiments as a preface to this 1706 formulation, which now came out
as a mechanism empirically well confirmed:
Now the smallest particles of matter may cohere by the strongest attractions, and
compose bigger particles of weaker virtue; and many of these may cohere and
compose bigger particles whose virtue is still weaker, and so on for divers succes-
sions. (1231 p. 394)
We need only to compare this formulation of the law with its more care-
ful version which opens the suppressed part of Q(22) to realize what
Newton was after. Whereas in 1706 the law carefully referred to the
f
connection between the ratio -
m
of force to mass and the mass m, now
the law simply mentions connection between the force f and the mass m,
stating that the force of a corpuscle is inversely related to its mass. Thus
formulated, the law quite obviously contradicts the mechanism suggested
by Newton in its explanation, since, given that each of the components
particles contributes some amount (however small) to their total resultant

force, it follows that this increases as the composite mass, and certainly
cannot decrease as more particles are added.
But this formulation of the law, though incorrect, was a good deal
more than a simple slip or oversight on Newton’s part. This really was
basically the law which he was after, one according to which the absolute
force which a particle exerted on its surroundings increases as its mass
decreases. This is the only occurrence of this erroneous version (and a
revised formulation, this time correct, was added in 1717 as we shall
presently see). Newton however let it stand unaltered during the next
few years.
5. Normalising the ether: the genesis of Query 21 of 1717

5.1 The inconsistency in Newton’s concept of ether
The English edition of the Opticks of 1717 gave expression to two new
aspects of Newton’s evolving theory of micro-forces. One was his view
of ether as the active principle of matter, and the second his hypothesis
that electricity is the fundamental force in the subvisible realm. To im-
press upon his public that there does exist a unique kind of force acting
at a micro-level Newton added an account, interpolated into Q (23), of
Hauksbee’s experiments on cohesion effects: its aim was, as we have seen,
to give an experimental basis for his law of inverse-mass force. His new
conception of ether was presented in Q 16 to Q 24. His arguments that
electricity is the fundamental micro-force were introduced in two separate
queries 24 and 25 (their carefully written out drafts are now ULC. Add.
3970 ff. 235 and 241) but were never published. The only relics of these
that survived in the printed version were two short references to elec-
tricity, which we shall presently analyse.
One of the most difficult problems which Newton faced in presenting
this new theory of the ether was that he had already, in Q 28 (20) of 1706,
given a detailed and tightly reasoned argument against the possible
existence of such a universal medium. His main point then had been that
such a medium would resist the motion of the solar system and cause
their rapid deterioration, whereas no such decelerations were at all ob-
servable in the motions of the planets. Now that he himself had decided
to support such a universal medium, he was hard put to gainsay his own
previous refutation of it. And in this way Q 21 was born. His argument
14 CENTAURUS XVIII
206 Z. Bechfer
now was that the undisturbed motion of the planets proves the great
rarity of the new ether. But immediately another difficulty appeared in
consequence: Since one function of the new ether was to produce ob-
servable effects of universal gravitation which Newton suggested were
caused by density gradients in the ether, how could this be reconciled
with the rarity now demanded in its substance? His solution was to as-
sume that immense forces are present in each ether particle, so turning
the ether into the highly “elastic” medium, at which Newton eventually
arrived. This-to him consistent-concept of an ether that is both ex-
tremely rare and exceedingly elastic, and acts by means of a density-
gradient, was attained by way of the alterations discussed above which
he planned for the concluding part of Q (22). Let us now turn, therefore,
to consider the changes which Newton in 1717 planned to introduce into
his curvature argument, alterations which eventually led to its being
finally omitted from that edition.
5.2 A new function for the curvature argument: The appearance of gravity
as an inverse mass force
It is quite certain that when Newton prepared the 1717 edition of the
Opticks he at fist meant to include in it the curvature argument nearly
as it stood in the 1706 Q (22). There was, however, one serious drawback
to the argument as it was there presented: being based on a comparison
of refractive forces and of terrestrial gravitation, it could be taken to
imply a dangerous suggestion, namely, that gravitational intensity, or
acceleration, was not in fact a constant magnitude but rather depended
on the mass of the projectile in some inverse proportion. Such an extra
conclusion from the argument was most unwelcome because it jeopardized
a major tenet in the doctrine of the Principia, one which it strove to prove
both by experiment and theoretical induction: namely, the strict pro-
portionality of weight to mass (or, in modem parlance, of gravitational
mass to inertial mass).
So, first, the curvature argument needed to be purged of its reference
to projectiles at the surface of the earth. Newton decided to use as his
standard of comparison the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth. He
set quickly to calculate the velocity of the earth in its orbit, his jotted
calculations showing that he used the same method of calculation as in
1706, but now with a correct Huygenian law.11
It is not unlikely that this replacement of the projectile comparison by

one using the earth eventually suggested to Newton that gravitation could,
after all, be presented as a further example additional to magnetism in
his prefatory argument from the “analogy of nature”. (The reason
why the orbiting earth could so be used in this context, while a projectile
travelling near its surface could not will be discussed in detail on p. 210ff.).
Newton therefore drafted the following alteration (ULC.Add 3970 f.
621r):
Now in bodies. . .forces more easily. And for the like reason Gravity in the surfaces
of small globes is greater in proportion t o the globes then in the surfaces of great
globes of equal density. And therefore since the rays of light are the smallest bodies
known to us (For I d o not here consider the particles of aether) we may expect to
find their attraction very strong. And how strong they are may be gathered by this
Rule -- - to be above an hundred million of millions of millions of times greater
in proportion to the matter in them then the gravity of Earth towards the Sun in
proportion to the matter in it.
5.3 New function for the law of inverse mass force

This revision probably suggested to Newton the possibility of using the
concept of a force varying inversely as the mass in resolving the difficulties
in the new ether. As noted above, these difficulties centered on accepting
the consistency of an ether that is at once both extremely rare and active.
As the original aim of Q (22) was to argue that the minuteness of the
particles of light made them extremely active, this argument could here
be used to argue that the high activity of the new ether derived from the
minuteness of its particles also. At the same time this minuteness of size
enabled Newton to maintain the ether’s extreme rarity. And thus he
wrote on as follows (ibid):
As attraction is stronger in small magnets than in great ones in proportion to their
bulk, & gravity is greater in the surfaces of small Planets then in those of great
ones in proportion to their bulk, so the smallness of the rays of light may very
much contribute to the forces by which they are refracted. And so if any one should
suppose that Ether (like our air) may contain particles which endeavour to recede
from one another yirst he wrote, then crossed out, the version: “to be of the same
nature with Aer but exceedingly more subtile”,] (for I do not know what this Ether
is) & that its particles are exceedingly smaller then those of aer, or even then those
of light the exceeding smallness of its particles may contribute to the greatness of
the force by which those particles recede from one another & thereby make that
medium exceedingly more rare & elastic then aer.
14.
208 Z.Bechler
There still remained the third difficulty regarding the ether, namely, its
mode of causing universal gravitation. An ether so rare as effectively to
offer no resistance could hardly be expected to function by means of a
density gradient in producing so high powered an effect as the gravitation
of the earth towards the sun. Accordingly, in sequel to the previous
passage Newton tried to re-apply the curvature argument (for a new
purpose): Whereas in Q (22) it aimed to demonstrate the immense power
of refracting forces, it could now be used to prove the weakness of forces
of gravitation; and if the ether could produce such highly intense effects
as refraction, it certainly could cause the 1028times weaker effect of solar
gravitation. And so he set down a new paragraph (ibid):
And that the gravity of the Planets towards the Sun may not be thought too great
to be produced by the cause of gravity here suggested: upon a fair computation it
will (be) found that the gravity of our earth towards the Sun in proportion to the
quantity of its matter is above ten hundred millions of millions of millions of
millions of times less then the force by wfh a ray of light in entering into glass or
crystal is drawn or impelled towards the refracting body. And therefore the gravity
of the earth towards the Sun (“is effected by” crossed our) requires a variation of
the density of the Ether at the Orb of ye Earth an hundred millions of millions of
millions of millions of times slower then the variation of the density of the Ether
at the surface of glass o r crystal requisite to refract light. For the velocity of light
is to the velocity of Earth in Orbis magnus as 58 days of time in (which) the Earth
describes the (same space- crossed our); that is an arch equal to the radius of its
orb to about 7 minutes, the time in wch light comes from 0 to us; that is as about
12,000 to 1. And the curvity of a ray of light during it(s) refraction at the sur-
face of glass on wCh it falk very obliquely, is to the curvity of the earth
Orb, as the radius of that Orb to the radius of the curvity of the ray or as above
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. And the force which bends the ray is to the force
wCh keeps the earth or any Projectile in its orb or line of Projection in a ratio
compounded of the duplicate ratio of the velocities & the ratio of the curvities of
the lines of projection.
5.4 Cancelling the curvature argument

These three consecutive drafts witness the death of the curvature argu-
ment and the birth of Q21, into which the second was incorporated as
a concIusion.12 The original curvature argument, arguing as it did for
the intensity of the forces of the particles of light, lost its importance
now that the burning issue became the intensity of aethereal forces. It
was quite natural, once the role of being the active principle was trans-
ferred from light to the ether, that the status of the curvature argument
should be likewise translated. However, it now seemed a little absurd to

assert the reverse argument, thereby demonstrating by it the relative
weakness of gravitation as compared with the force of refraction and
thence inferring the plausibility of the mechanism of density gradients
for producing gravitational forces. This obviously solved no problem,
since now the original difficulty was simply carried over to refractive
forces, though in an enhanced form: for, supposing the solar gravitation
to be caused by a density gradient in the ether, how could this gradient
be 1026times more intense over a microscopic range of 10-5 inch? (The
draft’s argument is of course, incorrect in this detail since not only was
the refractive force 1026 times greater than gravitation but also the sun-
earth distance was 1018 times greater than the range of refractive forces,
and hence the gradient over the refractive range was 1044 and not a mere
1026 times “steeper” than that over the gravitational earth-sun one). It
is not unlikely that Newton not only noticed this obvious difficulty,
realizing the weakness of his own earlier argument, but also perceived
this new counter argument, heavily fortified now by the very same calcula-
tions as before. Not being too eager to supply arguments against his own
hypotheses, we would argue, Newton decided to give up any idea of
using the curvature argument as a support for his new ether and so
included only the second of the drafts in the new Q 21. And since the
highly active force of refraction was now of only secondary importance,
he omitted to restore the curvature argument in Q 30 (22).
5.5 The purpose of the law of inverse mass force

We have now seen that the law of inverse mass force, first announced
in Q (22) and followed by the curvature argument, gave rise in 1706 to
the passage in Q (23) dealing with this law (see p. 203 above) and then,
ten years later, the concluding passage of Q 21, also dealing with it. It
has further been pointed out that, to judge by the physical proximity of
their manuscript drafts, the first two announcements of the law of inverse
mass force in 1706 were initially written down shortly after the mass-
model of dispersion was first contrived for Q (21). I propose, therefore,
to regard all four of these passages-that dealing with the mass-model
of dispersion in Q (21) together with the three announcements of the law
of inverse-mass force (in Q(22), Q(23) and Q21)-as closely related
both sequentially and conceptually.
210 2.Bechler
I further suggest that the purpose of the inverse-mass force law was
by no means simply to announce a new law of nature. Rather, it originated
in an effort to solve the problem of the mass-model of chromatic disper-
sion introduced in Q (21). As we have seen, this was an “abnormal”
model since it assumed that the acceleration of the corpuscles of light
depended on their masses. The following Q(22) he then concluded by
announcing the law of inverse-mass force to be a general law of nature,
equally valid at the visible and in the subvisible levels. We have seen
that this idea was already entertained by Newton in the early 1690’s and
have proposed the corpuscular mechanism which he probably had in
mind from that time on. Hauksbee’s experiments immediately prior to
1706 were, we have again suggested, designed to establish the plausibility
of such an inverse-mass model, as Newton summarised it again in the
following Q (23).
It is plausible, therefore, to conjecture that the new and strange mass
dispersion model of Q (21) was being slowly “nomalised” through the
agency of the concluding passage of Q (22) and Hauksbee’s oil drop ex-
periment. Once the new concept of micro-forces was accepted and its
inverse-mass mechanism assimilated, the mass-model of dispersion would
no longer be any but an obvious, and “normal”, consequence of it. The
greater the bulk, (or mass), of the corpuscle of light, the weaker will be
the force it exchanges with the refracting medium, and the smaller will
be its acceleration. Red light will consist of the largest particles and be
least accelerated, while violet will consist of the smallest, most highly
accelerated ones.
6. Reprise: Inverse-mass gravitation and electricity unexcited

6.1 Gravitation as an inverse-massforce
Now to discuss the published version of the second passage in the draft
on f. 621’ (p. 207 above) of the new Q 21,as it was scheduled to appear in
1717. I have already noticed that in the three passages on f. 621 a new
instance was added to the old analogy of magnetism, namely, that of
gravitation. I have suggested that the initial motive which impelled New-
ton in 1715 to revise the curvature argument of Q(22) was probably
to eliminate its unwanted potential implication regarding the force of ter-
restrial gravity at the earth’s surface, viz. that the acceleration produced
by gravity was not strictly constant (at a given altitude above the earth’s
surface) but only approximately so, and in fact was dependent upon the
mass of the accelerated projectile. To avoid this consequence, therefore,
Newton changed his standard of comparison, replacing terrestrial gravity
on a single projectile by the solar gravitational force acting on the whole
globe of earth, This new comparison now snowballed in its turn, suggesting
to him the notion that “gravity in the surface of small globes is greater
in proportion. to the globes then in the surfaces of great globes of equal
density” (see p. 207 above), an idea which he at once repeated in almost
the same words in the next passage on the same folio, later including it
in this f o m in Q 21, where it now reads : “ . . .gravity is greater in the
surfaces of small planets than in those of great ones in proportion to
their bulk. ..,”
This repiacement of terrestrial projectile by solar planet, if made for
the reason suggested, was obviously a very thin disguise. It certainly did
not negate the menacing conclusion that seemed to be implied in the
first formulation, namely, that the acceleration of projectiles depended
on their masses. For, supposing the ratio of the force of gravity f a t the
f
surface of the planet to its mass M to be -, since f is the planet’s force
M
acting on the projectile m, it is also the projectile’s force acting on the
f f
planet. Hence, exactly as -is the projectile’s acceleration, so is -the
m M
acceleration of the planet (in its motion under the projectile’s force), and
each and every theoretical result holding for m applies to M in an
exactly symmetrical manner.
It may now be clearly seen that even though Newton’s new formulation
of the curvature argument was meant (if at all) to cover up for the danger-
ous implication of the first formulation, one needed only to apply New-
f
ton’s third law of motion to see that - the projectile’s acceleration,
my
C
1
was precisely as dependent on m as -was dependent on M.
M
f
It should also be clear that the exact way in which -depends on M
M
has no relevance to this conclusion. That Newton thought it possible to
f
state this dependence (by which - is inversely related to M) is enough
M
212 2.Bechler
to permit his reader to infer therefrom that Newton also believed in the
dependence of gravitational acceleration on the mass of the accelerated
body.
Not that Newton left many clues as to his reasoning here. Even so,
two points must be emphasized. First, though Q21, the published off-
spring of the cancelled part of Q (22), does not even hint at this, the
final draft of Q(22) leaves no doubt that Newton was not looking to
any density mechanism as the possible cause of the inverse dependence
f
of - on M. By the words “globes of equal density” he very clearly
M
limits this dependence to cases of constant density. Secondly, this law of
gravity is introduced in the drafts by the words “and for the like reason’*,
these referring back to the mechanism mentioned in his preceding
sentence, where he had written: “for the parts of small bodies being
closer together unite their forces more easily”. We may therefore con-
clude that “being closer” could not here mean “being denser*’(it cer-
tainly did not mean this in the case of magnets-are smaller magnets
denser?).13
6.2 Breaking away from the Principia ?

But may we also conclude that Newton was here suggesting a common
mechanism for the inverse-mass force of gravitation and of magnetism?
We have suggested (see p. 198 above) that his intention was to describe
a kind of screen-effect, in which the outer particles composing a body
by their mere “bulk” screen off the accumulative forces of the internal
particles. In the case of such a mechanism, the resultant force of the
f
body might well not be proportional to its mass, so that M would be
inversely related to M, and such bodies would be accelerated according
to their masses. Could it be that Newton was contemplating assigning
such a mechanism to gravitation as well (even though it was a long-
range force) ?
Perplexing as this may now sound, certain considerations may be ad-
duced to support the suggestion that Newton was trying out the validity
of a subtle break with the doctrine of the Principia. First, in his Principia
Newton’s law of forces which are inversely us the mass 213
Newton had declared that the planets were not of equal density but
rather the denser the smaller they were. Moreover, his own data in that
f
corollary show that the ratio - is not inversely but rather directly
M
proportional to M. So when he put forward his new law in the Opticks
he could have intended no silent appeal for confirmation back to his
Principia. Hence his usage of “globes” instead of “planets”: the law did
not purport to describe the observed regularity of our solar system, but
rather an ideal situation in which the “globes” were “of equal density”.l4
But an even more significant point suggests itself on comparing the
presentation in the Opticks with that in the Principia. In the Opticks
Newton deliberately decided to present magnetism and gravity as com-
f
parable cases in so far as the dependence of -on M is considered. This,
M
however, stood in flat contradiction to Newton’s position in the Principia
not just by implication but in a most strikingly explicit manner. For in
Cor. 3 to Prop. VI of Book I11 Newton had stated that “The power of
gravity is of a different nature from the power of magnetism. For the
magnetic attraction is not as the matter attracted”, (see p. 196 above).
From this consideration there can be no doubt that Newton was
offering in the Opticks something new, strange and quite revolutionary.
He was implying, though quite hesitantly and with great reluctance, that
the direct proportionality of weight and mass, so vehemently argued for
in the relevant propositions of the Principia Book 111, was after all only
approximate. (It should be remembered that this proportionality was
derived in the Principia only experimentally, and that Newton did not
there offer it as a proposiiion theoretically deduced within his theory.
The difference between magnetism and gravitation, Newton was now
impIying in the Opticks, was not qualitative (as the Principia had de-
clared) but merely quantitative.
6.3 The analogy of electricity in Q 21

But more was now to come. As gravitation was added to magnetism in
the drafts to exemplify the inverse-mass law of force so in the final
214 2.Bechler
published version another instance of the law was supplied. It concerned

the new force which Newton intended to put forward as candidate for
the immensely important role of the fundamental force of the micro-
realm, namely, electricity.15 The published version read :
as attraction is stronger in small magnets than in greater ones in proportion to

their bulk, and gravity is greater in the surfaces of small planets than in those of
great ones in proportion to their bulk, and small bodies are agitated much more
by electric atzracrion than great ones; so the smallness of the rays of light may
contribute very much to the power of the agent by which they are refracted.
([23] pp. 351-2 my italics)
The example of electricity as an instance of an inverse-mass force is here

presented in a slightly but significantly different manner from those of
magnetism and gravitation. Whereas in the latter only the force-to-mass
ratio of the attracting body is mentioned, in the case of electricity Newton
refers explicitly to the force-to-mass ratio of the actracted bodies. Though
the two modes of presentation were (by Newton’s third law of motion)
really equivalent, only that of magnetism and gravitation was directly
and explicitly pertinent to the immediate purpose of Query 21 as a whole.
For the problem was now to exhibit the particles of ether as sources of
highly intensive forces. The illustration of electric attraction, on the other
hand, emphasized the passive aspect of the attracted particles and the
inverse relation between their mass and their acceleration. Its source-the
counterpart of the magnet or the planet in magnetic or gravitational
attraction-is not mentioned here at all.
But though the new analogy did not directly illustrate the purpose of
the new Q21, we have only to remind ourselves of the origin of this
part of the new query, to see that it was the only one that was directly
relevant to its original role. Originally the three analogies were planned
to precede the curvature argument, and in this role they were intended
as illustrations in the visible world of such modes of activities in the
subvisible realm as the motion of the particles of light during refraction.
This corpuscular motion was exemplified in the curvature argument by
a projectile moving under the earth’s gravity, or by the earth moving
under the sun’s gravity, or by little bodies moving under the force of
electricity (but by neither the magnet nor the earth as attracting bodies).
Only in this analogy of electricity did Newton feel safe enough to an-
Newton's law of forces which are inversely as the mass 215
nounce clearly and explicitly the inverse rela tion between the acceleration
and the mass of an accelerated body.
6.4 The fundamental micro-force: why should it be electricity?

The other addition relating to electricity in 1717 occurs at the end of Q 31
where it is suggested that it might be the one force of the visible realm
which acts also in the subvisible realm even in an "unexcited" condition.
It is well known nowadays that Newton had twice-once shortly before
1713 and again some time before 1717-suggested that electricity was
the fundamental force of the micro-world but that both times he decided
against publishing this. There can be little doubt of his own deep commit-
ment to this novel suggestion. One needs only read the following passages
from drafts for the General Scholium of his 1713Principia:
Proposition 1. That very small particles of bodies, whether contiguous or at very
small distances, attract one another. ...
Proposition 2. Or Scholium. That attraction is of the electric kind. . ..
Proposition 10. That light is emitted, refracted, reflected and inflected by the electric
spirit. (PI pp. 361. 364)
And the two queries which he at first meant to add to the Opticks in
1717 start similarly (ULC.Add. 3970 f. 235'):
QU. 24. May not the forces by which the small particles of bodies cohere and act
upon one another at small distances for producing the above mentioned phenomena
..
of nature be electric 7 .
Qu. 25. Do not all bodies therefore abound with a very subtile, but active, potent,
.
electric spirit by which light is emitted, refracted and reflected?. .
Two questions here readily spring to mind: Why seize on electricity for
this role? and why, if Newton felt so convinced about it, did he decide
eventually not to publish his conviction? Let us suggest an answer to the
first question only, one centered on the optical role of micro-electricity.
Whatever else the role of the micro-force of electricity was intended to
be, its &st and most clearly defined function in all the drafts was to
account for the refraction, reflection, and inflection of light by matter.
This was so, simply because these optical phenomena were as yet the only
clearly identified ones susceptible of an explanation in terms of micro-force.
216 2.Bechler
Since refraction entailed for Newton chromatic dispersion and this en-
tailed a mass model, the micro-force would have to be an inverse-mass
force; moreover, its range would need to be short since optical effects
occur only in the immediate vicinity of matter; and lastly it would have
to be dual in function, at once attractive and repulsive, in order to explain
refraction and also reflection and inflection (both of which Newton regarded
as repulsion). The crucial consideration in choosing such a micro-force
in the invisible realm was that it had to be also a macro-force of the
visible world so as to leave no doubt about its identity, properties and
“n~rmality’~: this in line with Newton’s fundamental methodological rule
of proceeding by the “analogy of nature” according to which the basic
structure and behaviour of the micro-realm shall be exhibited as but an
extension of the macro-realm, except for such additional limitations and
qualifications as might necessarily ensue from its new micro-dimensions.
It was this rule of the analogy of nature that dictated to Newton that
the micro-force of optical phenomena had to be chosen from among the
well identified macro-triad of gravitation, magnetism, and electricity.
Of these only electricity fulfilled all three fundamental conditions, being
simultaneously an inverse-mass force, of short-ranged and dual in its
action. Whereas gravitation was both long-ranged and uniquely attractive,
while magnetism, though acceptably both an inverse-mass force and dual
in its functioning, was again long-ranged, electricity was manifestly fitted
for the task to be performed. It produced accelerations which depended
on the masses of the accelerated bodies, it “may reach to such small
distances, even without being excited by friction”, and (by 1717, though
definitely not before 1704) Newton was willing to regard it as a dual
force. ‘
7. Summary
(a) Newton’s discovery of the law of dispersion, or chromatic refraction,
presented him with a force that was different from anything known to
him in the visible realm. After having failed to explain dispersion as a
micro-equivalent of gravitation, in which the differing accelerations
of moving masses are caused by their differing initial velocities, New-
ton finally came to ascribe to what I have named the “muss modd of
dispersion”, declaring that refractive forces produce accelerations
Newton’s law of forces which are inversely as the mass 21 7
which depend on the masses of the accelerated bodies. Here (as well
as in allowing for the effect of double refraction at an interface) his
corpuscular optics determined his need to regard refractive forces as
strange (“abnormal”) forces.
(b) It was, however, of the utmost importance for Newton to eliminate
this abnormality from his explication, since this would be the clearest
of indications of the essentially ad hoc nature of the explication. In
his eyes, an explication could be accepted as a “theory”, rather than
as mere “conjecture” or “romance”, by showing it to follow the strict
rule of the “analogy of nature”, according to which “nature is very
consonant to herself“. Regarded as a methodological rule of model
construction this allowed in the micro-realm only those forces which
.operated identically as known forces of the visible realm.
(c) However, where the dissimilarity is too manifest to ignore, as was the
case with refractive force, sterner measures need to be taken: Newton
announced a new law of force, according to which the ratio of the
force to the mass of the body varied inversely as this mass. This I
name the “law of inverse-massforce”. Newton implied that this new
law held equally throughout the visible and the invisible realms so
that the smaller the bodies concerned are, the greater the ratio of
force to mass becomes.
Although Newton presented this law in a context somewhat dif-
ferent from the problem of dispersion, I suggest on the basis of manu-
script evidence that both the mass model of dispersion and the law
of inverse-mass force were first written down at the same time, and
so it is highly likely that they are conceptually interrelated. Clearly,
the new law implied that the acceleration produced by the force was
inversely proportional to the accelerated mass.
(d) However, Newton could at first produce only a single analogue
-magnetism-in the visible realm: This he declared to be stronger,
mass per mass, in smaller magnets than in greater. Nevertheless, he
went on to show that the forces associated with particles of light,
such as that of refraction, would be immensely greater than gravity
at the surface of the earth. This demonstration, which I name the
“curvature argument”, was based on existing (but erroneous) calcula-
tions which compare the curvature of and velocity in a projectile’s
path at the earth‘s surface and those of a particle of light passing
through a refractive interface, both being assumed to move in para-
21 8 2.Bechler
bolas under the analogous action of gravitational and refractive forces,

respectively.
(e) On the same manuscript folio Newton now went on to propose a
mechanism to account for this inverse-mass force. I suggest an inter-
pretation of this mechanism as a kind of screening efect, according
to which the outer-shell particles of some cluster filter-off the forces
of the internal particles as a result of their short range. In such a
case, the resultant force of the cluster would be due principally to its
outer particles and hence not be directly proportional to its mass.
Since this mass would increase much more rapidly than its resultant
force, obviously the force-to-mass ratio would here be inversely pro-
portional to the mass. Again, since only a small part of the outer
shell particles would effectively determine the force of the whole mass,
this force could be proportional to the density of the body. I point
to some evidence that Newton was contemplating such a mechanism
as early as about 1692, when he was still planning to conclude the
Opticks with a fourth book devoted, among other things, to the
mechanism of refraction. This mechanism is also, I suggest, the
theoretical background to the notorious proposition in the Opticks
which states that the refractive force of a medium is proportional to
its density.
(f) Newton’s accounts of the mass model of dispersion, the law of in-
verse-mass force, and the screening mechanism, were very likely first
drafted simultaneously despite their being rather widely separated in
the text of the 1706 Opticks, the first appearing in query 21, the
second in query 22, and the third in query 23 (pp. 317, 321 and 337
respectively).
(g) This paucity of comparison cases in the visible realm was remedied
in the edition of 1717. In preparing this, Newton decided to modify
the curvature argument by replacing a projectile to the earth’s surface
by the earth as a whole moving round the sun under the force of its
gravitation. As a result, a new analogue appeared to be set beside
magnetism, namely, gravitation at the surface of planets in relation
to their own mass.
(h) But Newton’s redrafting in 1717 of the law of inverse-mass force and
of the curvature argument produced yet other outcomes. He now
decided to adapt the law of inverse-mass force and the earlier curva-
ture argument to show the compatibility of the apparently inconsistent
properties of the newly introduced universal ether. But his attempt

to use the newly calculated values to reconcile the great rarity de-
manded of the ether with its alleged mechanism of action by way of
density gradient, ended in the decision to drop the curvature argu-
ment completely. Thus perished the conclusion of query 22 of 1706.
However, another attempt to use the law of inverse-mass force to a
similar end quickly produced a richer and more adventurousformula-
tion of the law which eventually survived to be the conclusion to the
new query 21, itself probably born out of this attempt.
(i) The published version of the law as it appeared in query 21 of 1717
finally included in its count of comparable instances in the visible
realm not only magnetism and the more recently introduced gravita-
tion, but now electricity as well. I suggest that Newton’s choice of
this as the fundamental micro-force in the sub-visible realm was
dictated by well founded reasons, the main one being that it was the
best available candidate in the visible realm for this subvisible optical
function.
(j) I further suggest that a comparison with the Principia’s relevant an-
nouncements provides some ground for the hypothesis that Newton
was subtly and hesitantly making a brave public display of his willing-
ness to break with the Principia’s doctrine of acceleration being in-
dependent of the mass of the accelerated body in order to save the
analogy of nature.
8. Notes
0. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. D. T. Whiteside who read and thoroughly
criticized an earlier version of this paper. His efforts and help in developing all the
minutiae of the argument were crucial indeed, though he may not be held responsible
for any deficiencies in it. I also wish to thank Professors R. S. Westfall and J. E.
McGuire for their critical remarks on an earlier version. And last I wish to thank
my friend Dr. Y. Elkana who made it all possible.
1. Concerning the changes in the queries of the three editions of the Opticks, see survey
in [14].
sin i
2. The function was f(v1) = - sin r
=
V
+-
1
T 2
in which k is a constant depending on
the refracting material.

3. Concerning the failure of the velocity model see my detailed analysis in 111.
220 2.Bechler
4. The original reading:

Estque vis magnetica longe major pro quantitate materiae quam vis gravitatis: sed &
in eodem corpore intendi potest & remitti; in recessu vero a magnete decrescit in
ratione distantiae plusquam duplicata; propterea quod vis longe fortior sit contactu,
quam cum attrahentia vel minimum separantur ab invicem.
5. Qu. 22. Annon Corpora crassa & Lumen in se mutuo converti & transmutari possunt ?
& h n o n fieri potest, ut corpora vim suam actuosam accipiant a particulis Luminis,
quae in eis componendis insunt ? [22]p. 3 19.
6. The radius of curvature of a parabola at its vertex is half its latus rectum. For the pro-
jectile’s parabola we have yz = 2gx, hence half its latus rectum is g = 30 feet.
7. The sequence of the calculations on f. 292v is as follows: The velocity of the projectile
is 30 feet per second = 2i miles per 7 minutes. For calculating the velocity of light,
the sun-earth distance was first derived by assuming the sun parallax to be 10” and
the earth‘s radius 4000 miles. Hence the sun-earth distance is about 4000 x cot g 10” M
360
4 0 0 0 x 6 ~ 6 0 ~ - miles. This is also the distance covered by light in 7 minutes.
2x
Hence: “veloc: luck. veloc: project.” = 33.12 x lo6 : 1. Next, taking the radius of
curvature of the projectile as 30 feet and that of light as 10-6 inch = x feet,
he obtained their ratio as “12, 30, 1OOOOO = 36000000”.Finally 33.12 x 10’ x 36 x 108
= 11. 932x10’5 w lo1“.
8. Newton discovered the error only on checking the already printed version. He ac-
cordingly corrected the text in his private copy of the Optice, adding the word ‘‘bis”
in the margin, so that now the formula that is
(
f
-
m
-)va=
R
correctly follows from his
“Huygenian proposition” of the Principiu, namely, Prop. IV of Book I. He subse-
quently added three noughts to the figure to make it lo1*.(It should, in fact, be 1022).
9. In this final version the force formula was again written down erroneously, but Newton
rectified the error by adding, by a caret, the word “twice”. He failed to correct the
numerical value, however. It was probably now too late to correct the printer’s draft.
10. Concerning these experiments see [6]. [7].
11. Now, however, he assumed the sun’s parallax to be about 12 seconds, this giving him
the velocity of light as 69 x 106 miles per 7+ minutes. The corresponding velocity of
‘the earth he calculates to be 6197 miles in 7t minutes. Since 69 x 106 miles is the sun-
earth distance, this is also the radius of the curvature of the earth’s orbit, while that
of the light is taken, again much as in 1706, as 10-6 inch, hence, “Radii of curvities
1
69000000000 paces & -
60000000
paces”, (since 1 pace = 5 feet = 60 inches), and also
“Swiftnes of light to swiftness of 0 as 11135 to f. The of velocities as 123988225 to
1 or rotunde 124000000 to 1”. Multiplying these values he obtained for the ratio of
the intensities about 5 x 1028.
12. It is quite probable that the initial stimulus to draft the first part of the new Q 21
was also born on this occasion. This first part argues for the extreme elasticity of the
ether by comparing the velocity of its waves -assumed to be greater than that of light -
with that of sound waves in the air. At the bottom of the curvature calculations on
f. 622vNewton jotted down:
V‘elasticity elasticity
Velocity: :
d G o velocity.- density
For the Velocitys of the pulses of Elastic mediums are in subduplicate ratio of
the elasticitys directly & densitys inversely. For the squares of the velocities of
the pulses of Elastic Mediums are as the elasticities & the rarities as the Mediums
taken together.
The first sentence of this survived to conclude the opening half of Q 21.
13. Confusion on this point has recently given rise to misinterpretations of Newton’s
conception of ether, in which his and the 18th century concept of point mass atoms
is hastily equated. See, for example, /I31 pp. 241-6.
14. See the Principia, Book three, Prop. VIII Cor. 3-4 [25]pp. 228-9. The data in Cor. 3.
far from confirming the following Cor. 4,in fact contradict it. It may easily be seen
that according to these data the densities of the sun, earth, Jupiter and Saturn are as
100:400:94:67. Moreover, these data contradict the new forte law of the Opricks,
since they imply that the force-to-mass ratios of the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn are as
: 1 : 4.
15. Concerning the “electric and elastic ether” see [2],[lo], [8], [Ill.[12].
9. References
[I] Bechler, Z. “Newton’s search for a Mechanical Model of Dispersion: A suggested
interpretation”, Ar. His. Ex. Sc. II, (1973). 1-37.
[2] Cohen, 1. B. “Newton’s Electric and Elastic Spirit” Isis, 51 (1960), p. 337.
[3] Cohen, I. B. “Hypotheses in Newton’s Philosophy” Physis 7, (1966). 163-184.
[4] Cohen, I. B. Isaac Newton. The Creative Scientific Mind at Work,The Wiles lectures,
1966 Photostat.
[S] Guerlac. H. Newton et Epicure (Paris, 1963).
€61 Guerlac, H. “Francis Hauksbee: experimentateur au profit de Newton”, Arch. Inr.
Hist. Sci. I6 (1963), 113-28.
[I Guerlac, H. “Sir Isaac and the Ingenious Mr. Hauksbee”, Mdfanges Alexandrc Koyrd,
p. 228-253.
[8] Guerlac, H. “Newton’s Optical Aether”. Notes Rec. R. SOC.Land. 22, (1967), p. 45-57.
(91 Hall, A, R. and Hall, M. B. (ed.) Unpublished Scientific Papers oflsaac Newton (Cam-
bridge, 1962).
[lo]Hall, A. R. and Hall, M. B. “Newton’s Electric Spirit: four oddities” Isis, (1959) 50
p. 473476.
[ll] Hawes, J. L. “Newton and the Electrical Attraction Unexcited”, Ann. Sci. 24, 1968,
p. 121-130.
[12]’ Hawes, J. L. “Newton’s revival of the Ether Hypothesis”, Notes Rec. R . SOC.Lond.
23 (1968), 200-212.
15 CENTAURUSxvIII
222 Z . Bechler
[13] Heimann, P. M. and McGuire, J. E. “Newtonian Forces and Lockean Powers: Con-
cepts of Matter in Eighteenth-Century Thought”, Historical Studies in the Physical
Sciences, 3 (1971), p. 233-306.
[14] Koyr6, A. “les Queries de I’Optique”, Ar. Int. Hist. Sci. 13, (1960), 15-29.
[IS] Koyrt, A. and Cohen, I. B. “Newton’s Electric and Elastic Spirit”. Zsis, 51, 1960,
p. 337.
[ l a McGuire, J. E. “Force, Active Principles, and Newton’s invisible realm”, Ambix 16,
(1969), p. 165-208.
[17] McGuire. J. E. “Body and Void and Newton’s De Mundi Systemati”, Ar. His. Ex. Sc.
3, (1966), p. 206-248.
[l8] McGuire. J. E. “Transmutation and Immutability: Newton’s Doctrine of Physical
Qualities”, Ambix. 14 (1967), p. 69-95.
[19] McGuire, J. E. and Rattansi, P. M. “Newton and the Pipes of Pan”, Notes Rec. R.
SOC.Lond. 21, (1966). p. 108-143.
[ZO] McGuire, J. E. “The Origin of Newton’s Doctrine of Essential Qualities”, Centaurus
12 (1968), p. 233-260.
[21] McGuire, J. E. “Atoms and Analogy of Nature: Newton’s Third Rule of Philosos-
ophizing”, Stud. Hkt. Phil. Sci. 1 (1970). p. 3-58.
[22] Newton, I. Optice. (London, 1706).
[23] Newton. I. Opticks: or a treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Znflections and Colours
oflight. Reprinted from the 4th edition of 1730, Dover Publications, 1952.
[24] Newton, I. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathernatica, London, 1687.
[25] Newton, I. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translatpd into English
by Andrew Motte. London, 1729 (Facsimile edition introduced by I. B. Cohen. Lon-
don, 1968).

Newton's Law of Forces Which Are Inversely As The Mass

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newton's Law of Forces Which Are Inversely As The Mass

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newton’s law of forces which are inversely

as the mass: a suggested interpretation of

4. Drafting Q (22) in 1706

and matter (queries 1-16 of 1704), with light as a stream of particles

I .2 Three changes in the queries of I71 7

In 1717 Newton added the phrase:

No one has suggested till now why Newton favoured electricity as a

bee’s electrical experiments depended, naturally, on friction. Why did

Before going to analyse this considerable omission, I wish to draw at-

The model here suggested is, of course, manifestly invalid. A purely

2. The argument for the corpuscularity of light and its dangers

viewed also as regular forces freshly reorganized. Q 29 (21) is a long

2.2 Chromatic dispersion and the need for mass-dependent accelerations

for publication, he asked Flamsteed, very discreetly and vaguely, whether

In sequel he then went on to propound the rest of the mass model.

3. Newton’s earZy attempts to normalise strange forces

suggested that they might be strong enough to transmute one species of

3.2 The omission of gravitation as it refutes to the distinction between

The core of this “Hypothesis 1” was an argument that the failure of

fracting force would accordingly be proportional to the quantity of matter

3.4 The mechanism of inverse-massforce in Q (22)

4. Drafting Q (22) in I706

4.2 The curvature argument:

path of a body projected horizontally on the surface of the earth and of

These erroneous results, based on an erroneous formula, were later in-

4.3 Coiistructing the mechanism of inverse-massforce

4.4 Hauksbee’s experimentsfor defining the inverse-mas force

inverse-distance in nature, and, second, that they are of high intensity at

particles contributes some amount (however small) to their total resultant

5. Normalising the ether: the genesis of Query 21 of 1717

It is not unlikely that this replacement of the projectile comparison by

5.3 New function for the law of inverse mass force

5.4 Cancelling the curvature argument

should be likewise translated. However, it now seemed a little absurd to

5.5 The purpose of the law of inverse mass force

6. Reprise: Inverse-mass gravitation and electricity unexcited

6.2 Breaking away from the Principia ?

6.3 The analogy of electricity in Q 21

published version another instance of the law was supplied. It concerned

as attraction is stronger in small magnets than in greater ones in proportion to

The example of electricity as an instance of an inverse-mass force is here

6.4 The fundamental micro-force: why should it be electricity?

bolas under the analogous action of gravitational and refractive forces,

properties of the newly introduced universal ether. But his attempt

the refracting material.

4. The original reading:

You might also like