Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Newton's "Principia" stolen 439

Silverleaf writes "O2 have a story on the theft of Isaac Newton's revolutionary "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" from a Russian museum. For the non-physicists among you, Newton first published his famed three laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation in "Principia" in 1687. I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newton's "Principia" stolen

Comments Filter:
  • by spongman ( 182339 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @11:52PM (#4648261)
    Not unlike a description of the general process of privatizing the public sphere, really...
    except that privatization usually involves taking something away from the influence of a select few whose sole motivation is political gain and placing it under the influence of an arbitrarily large subset of the public whose sole motivation is the increase of its value (which is linked, in most cases, to its operating efficiency).
  • How, how, how? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @11:56PM (#4648287) Journal
    How the hell do you sell that on the black market? Is there some reclusive physicist out there collecting rare works (Einstein's drink napkin from Le Lapin Agile!) that will pay top dollar for this? If so, how does he/she show it off to their friends and family (assuming that they aren't that reclusive)? How do you explain that you just happen to have this sitting around in the family room?
  • Don't Panic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108@bellsou[ ]net ['th.' in gap]> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @12:16AM (#4648397)
    This is a rare first edition, not a hand written manuscript. Although these selfish thieves have deprived Russian students of a rare and valuable text, it is not unique. A quick google search revealed that among other universities, Georgia Tech owns not only a first edition identical to the one being stolen (although the russian copy may have been in better condition, the article doesn't say) they also have a rare second and a rare third edition(http://gtalumni.org/StayInformed/magazine/ sum99/newton.html). Some other results also credited the University of Cambridge for having the most complete collection of Newton's papers. Rare first editions are mainly for bragging rights anyway. I don't see why this should be an international incident as the story suggests. Very few people outside of Russia would have ever seen it anyway, as there are other copies available in mroe convenient places anyway.
  • by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @12:18AM (#4648414) Homepage

    You'd be surprised at how well old books hold up. Even with printing they were still something of a luxury item, so they were generally printed on first rate paper and covered in leather. Those are durable materials; paper only has a bad reputation because so much recently made paper has a high acid content and degrades over time. Acid free paper, though, can last a very long time indeed. To keep a book like that in decent shape you don't have to take extraordinary precautions; you just have to protect it from abuse. My grandmother has an early printing of Principia (I'm not sure if it's a first edition, but IIRC it was printed during Newton's lifetime) and the only reason I wasn't able to read it is because I don't know Latin.

  • Re:It's ok... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @12:34AM (#4648490) Homepage Journal
    Leibnitz was caricatured as Dr. Pangloss by Voltaire. Dr. Pangloss believed this was the best of all possible worlds and everything happened for the best. Leibnitz only published his lesser works because he sought the approbation of princes and the court. It wasn't till B. Russell unearthed some of Leibnitz's letters and more recondite works that the world came to be better equated with the logical genius of the man. My favorite idea from Leibnitz is the Characteristica Universalis wherein he proposed a sort of calculus cum esperanto which he thought would allow all issues to be made amenable to purely logical resolution. He suggested metaphysical issues could be resolved by persons taking out their pencils (or quills) and sitting down like accountants. "Gentlemen let us calculate" was his battle cry. You can begin to see why Russell, who along with Whitehead authored Principia Mathematica in an effort to base logic in arithmetic, would think Leibnitz to be the supreme logical mind of all time.
  • Re:It's ok... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mwheeler01 ( 625017 ) <matthew.l.wheeler@NOsPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @12:47AM (#4648535)
    It's ok because Newton stole most of his material anyways
  • Not Rumors, reality! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:08AM (#4648656)
    This is from:
    [virginia.edu]
    http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundatio ns /chapter3.html

    Newton delayed publishing his results in part because he was forced to invent calculus in order to work out the results for the gravitational attraction of two extended bodies.

    He toyed with the idea that the interaction between the earth & the apple can be treated as the interaction between two point particles. To prove this he had to invent a formalism to add up the contribution to the interaction of different pieces of the earth at varying distances from the apple -- (integral) calculus
  • by dmccarty ( 152630 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:51AM (#4648870)
    If I'm thinking of the same book, I was at a conference given by the data display pundit, Edward Tufte [edwardtufte.com] (great graph paper on that site, by the way). As part of his speech he had a First Edition copy of this book, which he carefully showed us.

    What's very interesting about this book is that the printers of the day decided to take Newton's nice illustrations and print them on a new embossing press. However, the pages had to ben run through the plain type press first, then the embosser. Four hundred years ago, this was the bleeding edge of technology and his illustrations wouldn't line up with the text.

    So instead they printed the first 80 pages or so of pure text with footnotes, and at the end of the book added a section of large fold-out pages for the embossed diagrams. In addition to having to learn calculus while reading the book, looking up each diagram in an appendix must've made for some maddening reading material!

    Mr. Tufte's point was that people who create data displays shouldn't let anyone screw with it. If they did it to Newton, they'll do it to anyone.

    By the way, the colophon [dictionary.com] includes the printer's name in color (the only place color is used in the book), but doesn't even have Newton's name on it!

    Anyway, that's a little info about the book.

  • by Pyrosophy ( 259529 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @05:08AM (#4649504)
    This is actually a bit misleading. Leibniz did not die without honor... he was a nobleman's nobleman who worked for kings and princes and the like.

    He didn't get credit for the Calculus as readily, but it's not like he was Baruch Spinoza or William Blake (or David Hume for that matter). The man was a philosopher to royalty. The calculus was only one of his great philosophical achievements and that was noted in his time.

    Incidentally, Leibniz's argument which Voltaire ridicules is kinda neat. God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Because he is all knowing, he knows all the possible worlds he could have made. Because he's all poweful, he could make any worlds he knows. And because he's all-loving, he would only make the best of all the possible worlds for us of those that he knows (all of them) and can make (all of them).

    So this is the best of all possible worlds.
  • by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @06:17AM (#4649703)
    I remember watching C-SPAN years ago when some bill or other about federal funding for scientific research was being debated. Some typical Congresscritter was on, the worst kind of clueless politician, way in over his head. He supported the bill, which put him on the right side in my view, but one could easily see that he was trying to profile himself as being "friendly to science", although he in fact understood very little of it.

    To illustrate his views, he introduced a quotation of Newton's by saying something like, "As the Great Scientist Isaac Newton once said, ...", with a bit of rhetorical flourish on the man's name.

    I was depressed. One would hope that anyone could speak of Isaac Newton without any further introduction, but clearly, this Congresscreature felt compelled to tell us that he was the "the Great Scientist". Otherwise, he ran the risk that his audience wouldn't know who in the world he was talking about.

    Why isn't there more interest in this story, you ask? Well, because quite a few people haven't the slightest clue who Newton is or what the Principia is all about. Not unless you mention "the Great Scientist".
  • Re:It's ok... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Viadd ( 173388 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:15PM (#4651801)
    Actually there is a better candidate [er.uqam.ca] for who Pangloss is a caricature of.

    Noël Antoine Pluche (1688-1761), the author of a highly popular work, Le Spectacle de la Nature (1732), took Leibnitz's ideas and ran with them, and ran, and ran, and ran.
  • Re:Impossible God (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NulDevice ( 186369 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @03:46PM (#4653268) Homepage
    This is one of the theological pitfalls of monotheism. If you have an omnipotent god, you get all sorts of fun little paradoxes.

    i.e. can God make a pie so big that even He couldn't eat it?

    Reagrdless of the answer, you're left with an non-omnipotent god, which goes against the omnipotent monotheistic ideal.

    Many philosophers have spent a lot of tiem rationalizing this out. Otehres have spent a lot of time using this to prove that God doesn't exist.

    Polytheisms don't fall victim to this, since rarely do they ever have or need an all-powerful god-figure. Gods/goddesses with specific domains don't need to be all-powerful to get their jobs done. Of course, polytheism has other theological problems.

    Theological philsophy is interesting to study. Brain-hurting sometimes, but fun.

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...