The Principia’s second law (as Newton understood it) from Galileo to Laplace

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Archive for History of Exact Sciences Pub Date : 2019-11-26 DOI:10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y
Bruce Pourciau
{"title":"The Principia’s second law (as Newton understood it) from Galileo to Laplace","authors":"Bruce Pourciau","doi":"10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Newton certainly regarded his second law of motion in the <i>Principia </i>as a fundamental axiom of mechanics. Yet the works that came after the <i>Principia,</i> the major treatises on the foundations of mechanics in the eighteenth century—by Varignon, Hermann, Euler, Maclaurin, d’Alembert, Euler (again), Lagrange, and Laplace—do not record, cite, discuss, or even mention the <i>Principia</i>’s statement of the second law. Nevertheless, the present study shows that all of these scientists do in fact assume the principle that the <i>Principia</i>’s second law asserts as a fundamental axiom in their mechanics. (For what that second law asserts, we rely on Newton’s own testimony.) Some, like Varignon and Hermann, assume the axiom implicitly, apparently unaware that any assumption is being made, while others, like Maclaurin and Euler, assume the axiom explicitly, apparently unaware that the assertion assumed is the second law as Newton himself understood it. But in every case these scientists employ the principle asserted by the <i>Principia</i>’s second law <i>fundamentally</i>, unaware that they should be citing <span>Neutonus</span>, <i>Prin., Phil. Nat. Math</i>., Lex II.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50982,"journal":{"name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Newton certainly regarded his second law of motion in the Principia as a fundamental axiom of mechanics. Yet the works that came after the Principia, the major treatises on the foundations of mechanics in the eighteenth century—by Varignon, Hermann, Euler, Maclaurin, d’Alembert, Euler (again), Lagrange, and Laplace—do not record, cite, discuss, or even mention the Principia’s statement of the second law. Nevertheless, the present study shows that all of these scientists do in fact assume the principle that the Principia’s second law asserts as a fundamental axiom in their mechanics. (For what that second law asserts, we rely on Newton’s own testimony.) Some, like Varignon and Hermann, assume the axiom implicitly, apparently unaware that any assumption is being made, while others, like Maclaurin and Euler, assume the axiom explicitly, apparently unaware that the assertion assumed is the second law as Newton himself understood it. But in every case these scientists employ the principle asserted by the Principia’s second law fundamentally, unaware that they should be citing Neutonus, Prin., Phil. Nat. Math., Lex II.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从伽利略到拉普拉斯的第二定律(牛顿的理解)
牛顿当然把《原理》中的第二运动定律视为力学的基本公理。然而,在《原理》之后的著作,即十八世纪关于力学基础的主要论文——瓦里尼翁、赫尔曼、欧拉、麦克劳林、达朗贝尔、欧拉(再次)、拉格朗日和拉普拉斯——并没有记录、引用、讨论甚至提及《原理》对第二定律的陈述。然而,目前的研究表明,所有这些科学家实际上都假设了原理第二定律所断言的原理是他们力学中的一条基本公理。(对于第二定律的断言,我们依赖于牛顿自己的证词。但在每一种情况下,这些科学家都从根本上采用了原理第二定律所断言的原理,没有意识到他们应该引用Neutonus,Prin。,菲尔,自然数学。,Lex II。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Archive for History of Exact Sciences 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Archive for History of Exact Sciences casts light upon the conceptual groundwork of the sciences by analyzing the historical course of rigorous quantitative thought and the precise theory of nature in the fields of mathematics, physics, technical chemistry, computer science, astronomy, and the biological sciences, embracing as well their connections to experiment. This journal nourishes historical research meeting the standards of the mathematical sciences. Its aim is to give rapid and full publication to writings of exceptional depth, scope, and permanence.
期刊最新文献
Quantum mechanics, radiation, and the equivalence proof The turbulence theory of P. Wehrlé and G. Dedebant (1934–1948): a forgotten probabilistic approach? A quantitative analysis of David Fabricius’ astronomical observations Free-energy calculations in condensed matter: from early challenges to the advent of umbrella sampling The practice of principles: Planck’s vision of a relativistic general dynamics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1