Archive for History of Exact Sciences最新文献

This paper studies the development of intensity schemes within the framework of the old quantum theory. It investigates how these schemes emerged in a complex process involving empirical observation, data analysis and conceptual reconfiguration and became essential tools for predicting the intensities of multiplets in the absence of a well-formed quantum theory of radiation. By applying the concept of paper tools, the study shows how intensity schemes became theoretical representations allowing both the classification and interpretation of observations and the formulation of theoretical predictions. It thereby highlights the importance of representational tools and empirical regularities within the development of the old quantum theory.

This paper provides a comprehensive summary of Johannes Kepler's research during his first tenure at Benatky, from February to June 1600. For the first time, Kepler had unrestricted access to Tycho Brahe's precise Mars observations, enabling him to test and refine his theories of planetary motion. Kepler aimed to resolve inconsistencies in Tycho’s Mars model, particularly its failure to predict parallactic observations accurately. Over the four months, he developed innovative methods, such as combining observations to triangulate distances and employing Tycho’s model as a generator of reliable heliocentric longitudes. Despite numerous mathematical errors and theoretical missteps, Kepler laid the groundwork for the revolutionary ideas he would later present in Astronomia Nova. This paper highlights Kepler’s creative and exploratory approach, his use of Tycho’s data, and the significant progress he made in understanding Mars’ orbit, even as many of his early hypotheses were ultimately discarded.

Although many people have extensively studied the earlier parts of Galois’s testamentary letter, in particular those concerning the Galois theory of algebraic equations and related group theory, it seems that the theory of ambiguity near the end of his letter is less well known and studied, and therefore, remaining somewhat mysterious. One purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of diverse interpretations of Galois’s theory of ambiguity by people such as Lie, Klein, Picard, and Grothendieck. We will discuss how well they fit Galois’s description for this theory and whether they satisfy one important criterion set by him. After a careful analysis of Galois’s statements regarding the theory of ambiguity and the rationale behind them, by taking all Galois’s works into consideration, we will offer our interpretation of it through the theory of monodromy for linear differential equations. Our findings challenge the common perception that Galois could not foresee applications of group theory beyond algebraic equations. Subsequently, we will discuss how these various interpretations have influenced later development of mathematics, particularly their impact on Lie’s idée fixe to develop a theory of transformation groups for differential equations. This analysis also raises doubts about a certain aspect of the commonly accepted narrative regarding the origin of the theory of Lie groups, and provides one important example of theories partially motivated by Galois’s theory of ambiguity. Additionally, we will identify results from works of his near contemporaries such as Riemann, Fuchs, Jordan and later generations such as Siegel, which seem to fit well our rendering of Galois’s description and criterion. This demonstrates the potentially intended broad scope of Galois’s theory of ambiguity. Furthermore, their alignment with our interpretation of Galois’s theory of ambiguity adds feasibility and credibility to the latter. We hope that the analysis in this paper will enhance our understanding of the meaning and impacts of Galois’s theory of ambiguity, reaffirming the profound and broad vision that Galois held for mathematics. Moreover, this paper contributes to an effort to reevaluate some of Galois’s seminal contributions and their impacts on the development of mathematics, transcending the traditional boundaries of algebra and number theory.

Kepler’s laws provided sufficient geometry and kinematics to strengthen astronomers’ preference for heliocentrism. While Kepler outlined some dynamic arguments, they were not rigorous enough to turn his laws into kinematic tools. As a result, some astronomers found ways to reconcile Kepler’s findings with geo-heliocentrism. One of these was the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli, who proposed a method known as the “epic-epicycle” (Riccioli, Almagestum novum, 1651). This paper will explore how Riccioli received and interpreted Kepler’s first and second laws within his own astronomical framework. This analysis will include a discussion of how Riccioli understood the concept of “physics” in his work, beginning with a study of the Sun’s motion (Riccioli, Astronomia reformata, 1665).

The stadion is the unit of length by which distances are reported in ancient Greek geographical sources. The itinerary indications in stadia can be found in several texts, but no specific unit values are given in the ancient geographers’ surviving works. However, the notion of a vaguely quantified, non-metrological itinerary unit is contradicted by the presence, since Hellenistic times, of road marker stones bearing distance indications along major ancient roads. The key assumption in this study is that, whatever the unit involved, main roads were actually measured to the best of capabilities, and distance measurements in ancient works did refer to some specific metrological system. Some well-known Greek languagecxesst sources are analyzed with the support of archeologic information obtained from a small number of pre-Roman road markers, and from modern reports of investigations about ancient roads and sites. Based on the evidence, it is shown that two different stadion values were most often used as itinerary units in the Greek and Hellenistic world, namely 177 m and 210 m, that can be traced respectively to the so-called Attic foot and Philetaeric (Ionic/Samian) foot. Conversion among units did also occur, and this may offer explanations for supposed textual inconsistencies that have so far proved hard to understand.

In ancient China, astronomers attempted to correct mean geocentric longitude of the inner planets using planetary “Expansion–Contraction Difference” (yingsuo cha 盈縮差) to obtain the true geocentric longitude. They used the “Limit Degree” (xiandu 限度) as the independent variable for the “Expansion–Contraction Difference”. Although this idea was relatively ideal and operationally simple, the algorithm of the “Expansion–Contraction Difference” designed by ancient Chinese astronomers had significant flaws in terms of its actual computational effectiveness for calculating the position of the inner planets. The reason for this flaw is that, based on its intended purpose, the “Expansion–Contraction Difference” should be a three-variable function, including the planetary equation of center, the solar equation of center and the phase angle of the planet, and each variable has different independent variables. However, ancient Chinese astronomers attempted to simplify this complex three-variable function into a single-variable function, and such simplification was unsuccessful. Further research indicates that the starting point of the expansion phase in the “Table of Expansion–Contraction Difference” (Yingsuo Li 盈縮曆) for the inner planets in ancient Chinese astronomical systems did not accurately depict the position of the planetary perihelion. Adjusting the starting point based on the longitude can improve the accuracy to some extent. Although the special coefficients of “double it for Venus, triple it for Mercury” can enhance the accuracy of calculations on the position of the inner planets, the result is not as ideal as expected. This study highlights that within the framework of ancient Chinese planetary theory, the algorithm of the “Expansion–Contraction Difference” for the inner planets possessed inherent and irreparable flaws, resulting in significant errors in the calculation of the apparent position of the inner planets.

During the Renaissance, several scholars worked to revive the contents and methods developed by the ancient Greek mathematicians. They began their research by studying the Latin editions of the Greek classics. The problem of Apollonius is a significant case study that sheds light on the recovery and re-appropriation of the solution methods employed by Greek mathematics. In this article, I will explore both the manuscript sources and the printed editions used by the Urbino School (Federico Commandino and Guidobaldo del Monte) to solve the problem of Apollonius.

Although rarely appreciated, the collaboration that brought Felix Klein and Sophus Lie together in 1869 had mainly to do with their common interests in the new field of line geometry. As mathematicians, Klein and Lie identified with the latest currents in geometry. Not long before, Klein’s mentor Julius Plücker launched the study of first- and second-degree line complexes, which provided much inspiration for Klein and Lie, though both were busy exploring a broad range of problems and theories. Klein used invariant theory and other algebraic methods to study the properties of line complexes, whereas Lie set his eyes on those aspects related to analysis and differential equations. Much later, historians and mathematicians came to treat the collaboration between Klein and Lie as a famous early chapter in the history of transformation groups, a development often identified with Klein’s “Erlangen Program” from 1872. The present detailed account of their joint work and mutual interests provides a very different picture of their early research, which had relatively little to do with group theory. This essay shows how the geometrical interests of Klein and Lie reflected contemporary trends by focusing on the central importance of quartic surfaces in line geometry.

The general recognition of the existence of atoms and molecules occurred only at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many researchers contributed to this, but the ultimate proof of the molecular nature of matter that convinced even the last sceptics was the confirmation of Albert Einstein’s statistical-fluctuation theory of Brownian motion, a part of his comprehension of interdisciplinary atomism, by Jean Perrin’s experiments on colloidal gamboge particles. Einstein noticed a difference between the values of Avogadro’s constant derived from Perrin’s experiments and Planck’s calculation from black-body radiation. Einstein assumed the incorrectly evaluated size of the gamboge spherules to be a culprit of the difference and asked Perrin to check the assumption with additional experiments and using the viscosity formula introduced in his own dissertation. The result was a discrepancy that neither Einstein nor Perrin settled any further. In this communication, based on the survey of developments in colloid and polymer science and their comparison with relevant experiments, an explanation of the dilemma is given that now, after more than a century, proves Einstein correct. The comparison was de facto possible during his lifetime.

The article offers a general account of the genesis of the absolute differential calculus (ADC), paying special attention to its links with the history of differential geometry. In relatively recent times, several historians have described the development of the ADC as a direct outgrowth either of the theory of algebraic and differential invariants or as a product of analytical investigations, thus minimizing the role of Riemann’s geometry in the process leading to its discovery. Our principal aim consists in challenging this historiographical tenet and analyzing the intimate connection between the development of Riemannian geometry and the birth of tensor calculus.