Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
Descartes' Laws of Motion
By Richard J. Blackwell *
Now compare this with Newton's first law of motion, which is the classic
statement of the principle of inertia:
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line,
unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.3
* Saint Louis 2 Principia philosophiae (Amsterdam, 1644),
University.
1The main point of difference is that the II, 37, 39.
order in which the last two laws are presented 3 Isaac Newton, Mathematical
Principles of
is reversed in the two works. In this paper Natural Philosophy, Motte translation revised
we will follow the sequence given in the Prin- by F. Cajori (Berkeley: Univ. California Press,
ciples of Philosophy since this is the more 1962), Vol 1 p. 13
logical ordering of the three laws.
Both of these statements of scientific law describe basically the same state
of physical affairs. A body at rest will stay at rest in the absence of an
external influence; a body in motion will continue always in motion in a
straight line in the absence of an external influence. Let us call this the
descriptive meaning of the principle of inertia. At this level Descartes has
a legitimate claim to priority in the formulation of the principle of inertia.
But the meaning of a scientific law includes much more than a description
of the physical state of affairs. Also involved is an understanding of why
the designated physical state of affairs obtains. Let us call this latter factor
the theoretical meaning of a scientific law, referring to the entire conceptual
apparatus which explains the physical event under discussion. Now it is
quite conceivable that two versions of a scientific law may agree at the level
of descriptive meaning but not at the level of theoretical meaning. In this
case the two versions are not really " the same law." For example, Kepler
and Newton would agree in regard to the actual paths described by the
planets around the sun, but not in regard to why this is the case. When
Kepler's laws were subsumed within Newtonian physics, they acquired a
new theoretical meaning.4
The purpose of this paper is to determine the theoretical meaning of
Descartes' version of the principle of inertia. Does this differ from the theo-
retical meaning of Newton's first law? To answer this question it will
be necessary to investigate the conceptual framework within which Descartes
sets his discussion of the problem. Fortunately Descartes is rather explicit
on this issue. He carefully worked out the metaphysical preliminaries which
he thought were needed as a base for his laws of nature. He also developed
a complicated theory of collision (his seven rules of impact), which illustrates
the use of his laws at the concrete level. From this data we should be able
to establish the theoretical meaning of his version of the principle of inertia.
Our task is complicated, however, by the fact that his rules of impact
are almost completely erroneous. (This is perhaps already an indication
that the theoretical meaning of his inertial principle is considerably different
from Newton's.) As Alexandre Koyre remarked, the obvious falsity of the
Cartesian rules of impact has led the history of science to reject them out
of hand without sufficient examination of their systematic role within
Cartesian physics.5 It will not be our purpose here to assess the empirical
validity of Descartes' rules of impact.6 Our approach rather will be to
assume that they are strictly logical consequences of his more basic three
laws of nature. If these logical connections can be worked out, then the
factors standing behind the rules of impact provide a tool for evaluation of
the theoretical meaning of Descartes' version of the principle of inertia.
In short, by granting the logical consistency of the laws of nature and the
4 For a convenient summary of the Keplerian Hermann, 1939), Vol. 3, p. 176.
theory of celestial motion and its differences 6 For Tannery's comparison of the Cartesian
from the Newtonian view, see J. L. E. Dreyer, and Newtonian analyses of the seven cases
A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler involved, see (Euvres de Descartes, eds. Charles
(New York: Dover, 1953), pp. 393-400. Adam and Paul Tannery (1st ed. Paris: Cerf,
5 Alexandre Koyre, Etudes Galileennes (Paris: 1897-1910), Vol. 9, pp. 327-330.
222 RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
is the main justification for his first two laws of nature.10 Persistence in
extension and persistence either in rest or in motion in a straight line is a
divine guarantee to each body in the universe. If these bodies are to inter-
act with each other, as they must, especially in a plenum universe, the law
of persistence must still be observed at the overall level in the conservation
of matter and motion.
This is a curious development in the history of science. Conservation
principles will be destined to play a major role in the formulation and
subsequent history of Newtonian physics. And here at the foundation of
Cartesian physics we also find an essential role played by the notion of
conservation. The theoretical differences, however, are of major propor-
tions. If it is legitimate to say that Descartes' emphasis on conservation
has contributed to the origins of modern physics, it must be noted that for
Descartes the word "conservation" refers more to something present in
God (i.e., immutability) than to anything properly inherent in the structure
of the material universe. In short, the conservation of matter and motion
is fundamentally a metaphysical law in Cartesian thought. However, its
physical counterpart has proven to be a very fertile concept in the history
of physics. Scientific concepts have a habit of developing in very devious
ways, and Descartes' contribution to the origin of the conservation laws is
perhaps not as negligible as it might at first seem.
Within this background the theoretical meaning of Descartes' first two
laws of nature emerges rather clearly. The first law states that if a body
is at rest, it will forever stay at rest unless disturbed by an external influence;
a body in motion will forever continue to move unless disturbed by an
external influence. But the reason for this persistence is not located in the
structure of either matter or motion. If these two were the only elements
to be considered here, the law of persistence quite possibly might not obtain
in the Cartesian universe. The first law does obtain because of the immuta-
bility of God in His conservation of the same quantity of matter and motion
in the universe. The persistence involved here is first and foremost the
persistence of God.
The second law of nature states in effect that a moving body will forever
continue to move in a straight line unless disturbed by an external influence.
The reason for this is once again the divine immutability rather than the
structure of matter or motion. Let us permit Descartes to speak for himself:
God conserves motion precisely as it is at the moment of time in which He
conserves it and independently of the motion which chanced to occur a little
bit earlier. And although no motion occurs in an instant, nevertheless it is
clear that whatever is moved, in the individual instants which can be desig-
nated while it is moving, is determined to continue its motion on further in
a straight line but never in any kind of a curved line.11
Descartes illustrates the above with an example of a stone being twirled
in a sling. At each point of its motion the stone would fly off on a tangent
lo Principia philosophiae, II, 37, 39. il Ibid., 39.
224 RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
to the circle if it became freed from the sling. So far, so good. But the
reason for this is that God conserves its motion independently of any
previous motion, and as Descartes says, ". . . none of this curvature can be
said to remain in it...." What this really means is that the divine im-
mutability would be imperiled if the stone at any given point of its motion
could continue on in any path other than a straight line. Any such irregu-
larity would signal a change in the divine act of conservation. Also involved
here is an atomistic view of time and a commitment that a straight line
is more perfect than a curved line. But Descartes' main concern is to argue
that the immutability of God guarantees that a moving body will continue
its motion in a straight line.
two forces are identical. To determine the result of a collision between two
bodies, one need only to calculate the force of persistence in the first body,
the force of resistance in the second body, and then compare these two
forces. The larger force will overcome the smaller one, and the result of
the collision is determined accordingly.
How are these forces to be calculated? What determines the quantity
of resistance in the second body? Examination of Descartes' rules of impact
reveals that two factors are involved here: namely, size and velocity.13 The
larger a body is, the greater is its persistence in motion or in rest, and the
greater is its resistance to another body. The faster a body moves, the greater
is its persistence in motion, and the greater is its resistance to another body.
Since in any given body the force of its persistence in its state of motion
or rest is equal to its force of resistance to another body, only one calculation
need be made for each of the two bodies involved in a collision. If a body
is in motion, its persistence in that state is measured by its size and its
velocity. Let us call this its quantity of motion.14 If a body is at rest, its
persistence in that state is measured by its size and the velocity of another
body of equal size. Descartes explicitly says that " a body at rest gives more
resistance to a larger velocity than to a smaller one in proportion to the excess
of the one velocity over the other." 15 Since a body at rest can adjust its
resistance to any exterior velocity in a body of equal size, its persistence in
rest is reduced to a function of its size. Let us call this its quantity of rest.16
This latter concept strikes a discordant note to the modern ear. Since the
time of Newton we have become accustomed to think in this context of the
concept of mass, or as Newton puts it, the " force of inactivity " (vis inertiae),
to understand why a body at rest resists being put in motion. As we shall
see more clearly, however, Newtonian mass is a quite foreign concept to
Cartesian physics; this will have major repercussions on the precise meaning
of Descartes' version of the principle of inertia. Nevertheless, Descartes is
well aware that a body at rest tends to stay at rest and resists being put in
motion. If such bodies are to enter meaningfully into his account of col-
lision, he must have some way of calculating their resistance to motion.
Hence he uses the notion which we have called the quantity of rest. This
13 In the Latin this is celeritas, in the French 20 ff.) takes Descartes' "quantity of motion"
vitesse. It should be noted, however, that for to mean momentum (mv). This in effect at-
Descartes velocity is a scalar and not a vector tributes to Descartes the concept of mass. But
quantity. He is aware of the directional this seems contrary to both his definition of
aspect of motion and tries to take account of matter as extension and the details of his rules
it in his laws of impact. But he does not look of impact. For Descartes the quantity of mo-
upon direction as a component of velocity tion is volume times velocity, not mass times
considered as a vector. As a result, his law of velocity. Descartes is not a Newtonian on this
the conservation of motion demands that the point.
same scalar quantity of motion be preserved 15Principia philosophiae, II, 49.
but not the same vector quantity. This is one 16 For a very helpful analysis of the meaning
of the sources of difficulty in his rules of of Descartes' notion of rest and its systematic
impact. Throughout this paper the term role in Cartesian physics, see M. Gueroult,
"velocity" will be used to refer to the scalar " Metaphysique et physique de la force chez
quantity of motion only. Descartes et chez Malebranche," Revue de
14 P. Mouy (Le d,eveloppement de la metaphysique et de morale, 1954, 59:1-37, 113-
physique Cartesienne [Paris: Vrin, 1934], pp. 134; Koyre, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 180.
226 RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
Fourth rule:
if C is completely at rest and is slightly larger than B, then no matter how
fast B is moved toward C, it will never move C but will be repelled by C in
the opposite direction. For a body at rest gives more resistance to a larger
velocity than to a smaller one in proportion to the excess of the one velocity
over the other. Therefore there is always a greater force in C to resist than
in B to impel.
Fifth rule:
if C is at rest and is smaller than B, then no matter how slowly B is moved
toward C, it will move C along with itself by transferring part of its motion
to C so that they are both moved with equal velocity. If B is twice as large as
C, it transfers a third of its motion to C because a third part of the motion
moves the body C as fast as the two remaining parts move the body B which
is twice as large. And thus, after B has collided with C, B is moved one third
228 RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
slower than it was before, that is, it requires the same time to be moved
through a space of two feet as it previously required to be moved through a
space of three feet. In the same way if B were three times larger than C,
it would transfer a fourth part of its motion to C, etc.
Sixth rule:
if C is at rest and is exactly equal to B, which is moved toward C, then C is
partially impelled by B and partially repels B in the opposite direction.
Thus, if B moves toward C with four degrees of velocity, it transfers one
degree to C and is reflected in the opposite direction with the remaining three
degrees.
Seventh rule:
let B and C be moved in the same direction with C moving more slowly and
B following C with a greater velocity so that they collide. Further let C be
greater than B, but the excess of velocity in B is greater than the excess of
magnitude in C. Then B will transfer as much of its motion to C so that they
are both moved afterward with equal velocity and in the same direction. On
the other hand, if the excess of velocity in B is less than the excess of magni-
tude in C, then B is reflected in the opposite direction and retains all of its
motion. These excesses are computed as follows. If C is twice as large as B
but B is not moved twice as fast as C, then B does not impel C but is reflected
in the opposite direction. But if B is moved more than twice as fast as C,
then B impels C. For example, if C has only two degrees of velocity and B
has five, then C acquires two degrees from B which, when transferred into C,
become only one degree since C is twice as large as B. And thus the two
bodies B and C are each moved afterward with three degrees of velocity. And
other cases must be evaluated in the same way. These things need no proof
because they are clear in themselves.19
19 Principia philosophiae, II, 46-52. We pre- additions. We will consider the more im-
sent here a translation of the original Latin portant additions in our evaluation of his
text. The later French version, which was ap- theory of collision in the next section.
proved by Descartes, includes a number of 20 Ibid., 40.
DESCARTES' LAWS OF MOTION 229
Rule 2. B differs from C only in being larger than C. Therefore the per-
sistence of B overcomes the resistance of C. Theorems Ib and IIa apply. B
continues on unchanged and imposes its direction on C. Since the original
velocities were equal, each body retains its original velocity after the colli-
sion. The amount of B's excess of size over C is immaterial; any difference
however small is sufficient to produce the effect.
However, Descartes' presentation of this rule is ambiguous. When he
says, " both bodies are moved toward the left with the same velocity," what
does he mean by the expression " same velocity "? Two interpretations are
available here. Either (a) each body retains its original velocity, or (b) the
velocities of both bodies are equal after the collision, but differ from their
original velocities. If the latter interpretation is accepted, the law of the
conservation of motion is violated. Instead of considering velocity a vector
quantity including a directional component, Descartes postulates that the
quantity of motion is a function of size and velocity, as we explained earlier.
By velocity he means the scalar quantity speed. Therefore, if there is any
change of velocity or speed in rule two, the conservation of motion is not
observed. As a result interpretation (a) seems preferable.
Rule 3. B differs from C only in being faster than C. Therefore the
persistence of B overcomes the resistance of C. Theorem IIb applies. B
imposes its direction and part of its motion upon C. The law of the con-
servation of motion is evoked in the calculations, for the sum of the two
velocities after the collision is the same as it was before the collision.
It is not clear why Theorem Ia does not apply here. In the other two
cases in which the colliding bodies are of equal size (Rules 1 and 6) mutual
reflection occurs. For some reason or other Descartes apparently feels that
the difference in velocity is the only relevant factor in Rule 3. This is
perhaps reflected in his remark that only a slight excess of velocity in B
is sufficient to produce the effect predicted by Rule 3.
Rule 4. B is in motion; C is at rest. B is smaller than C. The persistence
of B is overcome by the resistance of C. Theorem Ic applies. B is reflected
in the opposite direction with the same velocity and C remains at rest. The
velocity of B must remain unchanged in accordance with the law of the
conservation of motion.
Descartes' concept of the quantity of rest is operative in this rule. The
limit of resistance offered by C at rest is a function of its size and the velocity
of any other body of equal size. Since B is smaller than C, it can never
overcome the resistance of C no matter how fast it moves. In short, C, which
is at rest, can adjust its resistance to any smaller body of any velocity, as
Descartes explicitly says here. As a result the comparative sizes of the two
bodies are the only really relevant factors in Rule 4.22 However, if B were
larger than C, the resistance of C would be overcome. And if B were exactly
22 The French version of Rule 4 adds a long
note giving examples of how the force of indication of the ability of a body at rest to
resistance in a body at rest is always larger adjust its resistance to any velocity in a smaller
than the force of persistence in a smaller body body. The reason given in the French version
having any velocity whatsoever. This is a clear is precisely the larger size of the body at rest.
DESCARTES' LAWS OF MOTION 231
equal to C, C would reach the limit of its resistance. These latter two
possibilities are the subject of the next two rules.
Rule 5. B is in motion; C is at rest. B is larger than C. The persistence
of B overcomes the resistance of C. Theorem Ib applies. The larger body B
continues moving in the same direction and imposes its direction on the
motion of the smaller body C. But Theorem IIb also applies. The faster
body imposes its direction and part of its motion on the slower body.
According to the law of the conservation of motion the amount of motion
acquired by C is exactly equal to the amount of motion lost by B. As a
result they are both moved in the same direction with the same velocity.
In the calculations presented in the latter part of Rule 5 we have a clear
indication that Descartes measures the quantity of motion as a function of
size and velocity conjointly.
Rule 6. B is in motion; C is at rest. B and C are exactly equal in size.
In this case the limit of resistance in a body at rest is reached. The force
of persistence in one body seems to be equal to the force of resistance in the
other. Theorem Ia applies. Since B and C are equal in size, they mutually
reflect each other. One might also argue that Theorem IIb applies. The
faster body communicates its direction and part of its motion to a slower
body (taking a body at rest as being " slower " than a body in motion). But
the calculation presented at the end of Rule 6 is not clear.23 Why does the
moving body communicate less than half of its motion to the body at rest?
Is Descartes implicitly assuming here that a body at rest is in a " more
natural state" than a body in motion, and therefore that rest offers more
resistance than motion? The reason is not apparent. But at any rate the
law of the conservation of motion is carefully observed.
Rule 7. B moves faster than C in the same direction. Therefore Theorem
IIb applies. The faster body communicates part of its motion to the slower
body, all else being equal. B is smaller than C. Therefore Theorem Ic
applies. B is reflected in the opposite direction with the same velocity, all
else being equal. But it is not true that all else is equal. The bodies differ
in both size and velocity. Descartes tells us we must compare the sizes and
velocities to determine which takes precedence. If the excess of B's velocity
is greater than the excess of C's size, then Theorem IIb governs the result.
On the other hand, if the excess of B's velocity is smaller than the excess of
C's size, then Theorem Ic governs the result.
The computations given in the latter half of Rule 7 are of no help in
indicating precisely how these comparisons are to be made. The measure-
ment of both size and velocity will result in a scalar quantity for Descartes.
23 The French version of Rule 6 offers an the result is that these two effects are equally
explanation of this calculation. If B were to divided. Hence B retains three degrees of
move C without rebounding, it would transfer motion and communicates one degree to C.
half of its motion, i.e., two degrees, to C. If This explanation is not very convincing. It
B were to rebound without moving C, it would seems to assume that consideration of size
retain all of its motion, i.e., four degrees. Now takes precedence over consideration of relative
since the bodies are of equal size, neither of motion and rest, but the reason for this is
the above possibilities takes precedence, and not clear.
232 RICHARD J. BLACKWELL
But what are the units of measurement? How is the measurement of size (in
terms of three-dimensional volume) to be compared with the measurement
of velocity (in terms of distance per unit of time)? Descartes is very disap-
pointing on this score. Even though he was very well equipped to approach
the problem of motion quantitatively, he seems to prefer to think in quali-
tative terms throughout his entire presentation of the rules of impact.
Nevertheless, his computations here do reemphasize two key points: (a) the
understanding of the quantity of motion as a function of size and velocity;
and (b) the sanctity of the law of the conservation of motion.
Our attempt to reconstruct Descartes' theory of colliding bodies has been
only partially successful.24 Many questions remain unanswered. How would
the theorems we have introduced apply to other cases not examined by
Descartes? Does Descartes have an adequate apparatus for a complete and
consistent theory of impact? Precisely how are the theorems introduced
related to his laws of nature? Assuming that these theorems are true to
Cartesian thought, how would Descartes explain their origin? Would he
consider them as empirically grounded in some way or as deductions from
more general principles? How are the required calculations to be made in
an exact quantitative manner? The answers to these questions are not clear.
The texts of Descartes are too vague and too brief to clarify these points.
Nevertheless our analysis has explicated a number of concepts very basic
to the Cartesian theory of motion and the understanding of his first two
laws of nature. Chief among these are the concepts of the quantity of
motion and the law of conservation.
CONCLUSION
24 A different and
quite interesting attempt 4, 5, and 6 but is inadequate to explain the
to reconstruct the Cartesian theory of collision other rules.
is to be in D. Dubarle, O. P., " Remarques sur Mouy (op. cit., pp. 22-23) suggests the fol-
les regles du choc chez Descartes," in Cartesio lowing classification of the rules of impact.
(Milan: Vita et Pensiero, 1937), pp. 325-334. Group I: cases in which the inequalities of
Dubarle emphasizes the fact that Descartes' the two bodies regarding their respective sizes
Principia lacks an explanation of how the and states of velocity or rest compensate for
seven rules of impact are related to the third each other (Rules 1, 4, and 7, part 2). Group
law of nature. Some kind of supplementation II: cases in which the inequalities are very
is needed. For this Dubarle turns to Descartes' clear and do not compensate for each other
letter to Clerselier, 17 February 1645 (Adam (Rules 2, 3, 5, and 7, part 1). Group III: the
and Tannery [eds.], (Euvres de Descartes, Vol. intermediate cases which need to be resolved
4, pp. 183-188). The key point in this letter by the method of averaging (Rules 6 and 7,
is the principle of minimum change, i.e., when part 3). These classifications are not very clear
two bodies of unequal state collide, the result either in themselves or in relation to the third
is determined by the requirement that the law of nature. Moreover they are not of much
least possible change of state occur. Dubarle help in indicating the result predicted by each
concludes that this principle clarifies Rules of the seven rules.
DESCARTES' LAWS OF MOTION 233
of momentum is the key for which Descartes was searching and which would
have unlocked for him the mysteries of the theory of collision. Yet he is so
very far away. Mass is not extension, and extension is the only inherent
property of matter considered in itself for Descartes.
Also of major importance is Descartes' emphasis on the law of the con-
servation of motion. The fruitfulness of conservation principles was about
to blossom in the history of physics, but without the concept of mass,
Descartes is forced to identify this conservation ultimately with the immuta-
bility of God. If there were no God, the total quantity of motion may well
not be conserved in the Cartesian universe. It is a long way from Descartes'
conservation of motion to Newton's conservation of momentum, and once
again the gap between these two universes is bridged by the concept of
mass. However, Descartes' concern with the problem of the conservation
of motion undoubtedly played a major role in defining the dimensions of
this problem.
The meaning of Descartes' version of the principle of inertia should now
be quite clear. At the descriptive level his first two laws of nature designate
the same state of physical affairs as Newton's first law of motion, but the
theoretical differences are immense. A body perseveres in its state of motion
or rest for Descartes because this is demanded by the immutability of God.
The same holds true for Newton because of the body's mass. In the first
case the reason is external, in the second case internal, to the material world.
At the level of theoretical meaning these are not the same laws. One is
tempted to speculate as to what Cartesian physics would have turned out to
be if Descartes had grasped the concept of mass. But this is asking too much.
Matter is extension, and any change in this basic Cartesian commitment
would modify his entire physics.
In its specific teachings, Cartesian physics was destined to be repudiated
almost totally in the later history of science. Yet, paradoxically enough, it
is almost impossible to imagine what that later history would have been
without it.