Deferent and epicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Deferent" redirects here. For legal concept, see Deference.
The basic elements of Ptolemaic astronomy, showing a planet on an epicycle with a deferent and an equant.
The basic elements of Ptolemaic astronomy, showing a planet on an epicycle with a deferent and an equant.

In the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the epicycle (literally: on the circle in Greek) was a geometric model to explain the variations in speed and direction of the apparent motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets. It was designed by Apollonius of Perga at the end of the 3rd century BC. In particular it explained the retrograde motion of the five planets known at the time. Secondarily, it also explained changes in the apparent distances of the planets from Earth.

In the Ptolemaic system, the planets are assumed to move in a small circle, called an epicycle, which in turn moves along a larger circle called a deferent. Both circles rotate counterclockwise and are roughly parallel to the Earth's plane of orbit (ecliptic). The orbits of planets in this system are epitrochoids.

The deferent was a circle centered around a point halfway between the equant and the earth. The epicycle rotated on the deferent with uniform motion, not with respect to the center, but with respect to the off-center point called the equant. The rate at which the planet moved on the epicycle was fixed such that the angle between the center of the epicycle and the planet was the same as the angle between the earth and the sun.

Ptolemy did not predict the relative sizes of the planetary deferents in the Almagest. All of his calculations were done with respect to a normalized deferent. This is not to say that he believed the planets were all equidistant. He did guess at an ordering of the planets. Later he calculated their distances in the Planetary Hypotheses.

For superior planets the planet would typically rotate in the night sky slower than the stars. Each night the planet would "lag" a little behind the star. This is prograde motion. Occasionally, near opposition, the planet would appear to rotate in the night sky faster than the stars. This is retrograde motion. Ptolemy's model, in part, sought to explain this behavior.

The inferior planets were always observed to be near the sun, appearing only shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset. To accommodate this, Ptolemy's model fixed the motion of Mercury and Venus so that the line from the equant point to the center of the epicycle was always parallel to the earth-sun line.

Contents

[edit] Epicycles on epicycles

According to one school of thought in the history of astronomy, minor imperfections in the original Ptolemaic system were discovered through observations accumulated over time. More levels of epicycles (circles within circles) were added to the models, to match more accurately the observed planetary motions. The multiplication of epicycles is believed to have led to a nearly unworkable system by the 16th century. Copernicus created his heliocentric system in order to simplify the Ptolemaic astronomy of his day, and he succeeded in drastically reducing the number of "circles," a term which included both epicycles and (eccentric) deferents.

"With better observations additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a 'Sphere/With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,/Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb'--"[1]

Most commonly the number of circles is given as 80 for Ptolemy, versus a mere 34 for Copernicus.[2] The highest number appeared in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on "Astronomy" during the 1960s, in a discussion of King Alfonso X of Castile's interest in astronomy during the 13th century. (Among his other activities, Alfonso is supposed to have commissioned the Alfonsine Tables.)

"By this time each planet had been provided with from 40 to 60 epicycles to represent after a fashion its complex movement among the stars. Amazed at the difficulty of the project, Alfonso is credited with the remark that had he been present at the Creation he might have given excellent advice."[3]

The difficulty with this account is that historians examining books on Ptolemaic astronomy from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance have not found any trace of multiple epicycles being used for each planet. The Alfonsine Tables, for instance, were actually closer to Ptolemy's original calculations than the older Tables of Toledo, while 16th-century books based on Ptolemy and Copernicus use about equal numbers of epicycles.[4] The idea that Copernicus used only 34 circles in his system comes from his own statement in a preliminary unpublished sketch called the Commentariolus. By the time he published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, he had added more circles. Counting the total number is difficult, but estimates are that he created a system just as complicated, or even more so.[5] The popular total of about 80 circles for the Ptolemaic system seems to have appeared in 1898. It may have been inspired by the non-Ptolemaic system of Girolamo Fracastoro, who used either 77 or 79 orbs in his system inspired by Eudoxus of Cnidus.[6] The first planetary model without any epicycles was that of Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) in 12th century Andalusian Spain,[7] but epicycles were not eliminated in Europe until the 17th century, when Johannes Kepler's model of elliptical orbits gradually replaced Copernicus' model based on perfect circles.

[edit] Slang for Bad Science

In part due to sometimes fantastic attempts to make the failed earth-centered model work, "adding epicycles" has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. If one continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned, one is said to be "adding epicycles".

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Dorothy Stimson, The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe (New York, 1917), p. 14. The quotation is from John Milton's Paradise Lost, Book 8, 11.82-85.
  2. ^ Robert Palter, "An Approach to the History of Early Astronomy," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 1 (1970): 94.
  3. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968, vol. 2, p. 645. This is identified as the highest number in Owen Gingerich, "Alfonso X as a Patron of Astronomy," in The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993), p. 125.
  4. ^ Palter, "Approach to the History of Astronomy"; Gingerich, "Alfonso X"; Gingerich, "'Crisis' versus Aesthetic in the Copernican Revolution," in Eye of Heaven, pp. 193-204. Gingerich also expresses doubt about the quotation attributed to Alfonso.
  5. ^ "The popular belief that Copernicus's heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong...the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less elegant and adaptable." O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover, 1969), p. 204. This is an extreme estimate in favor of Ptolemy.
  6. ^ Palter, "Approach to the History of Astronomy," pp. 113-14.
  7. ^ Bernard R. Goldstein (March 1972). "Theory and Observation in Medieval Astronomy", Isis 63 (1), p. 39-47 [40-41].

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Greek astronomy
Astronomers
Works
Instruments
Concepts