چکیده:
In this article, the second chapter of Jame' Baharakhani's comprehensive book on optics has been selected for explanation and review. The fundamental question of this article is to examine the extent to which Jame' Baharakhani's optics is influenced by old and new schools of thought. The main hypothesis is that Jame' Baharakhani, despite all the advancements made in modern optics, still views optics based on the geometric optics texts of the Greek and Islamic periods available in his time and does not go beyond Euclidean mathematics. However, based on examples of geometric relationships and the latest astronomical discoveries that Jonpouri mentions in his book, it is likely that he was also aware of the latest developments in modern geometric optics of his time. Now, based on this main hypothesis, another hypothesis comes to mind: optics in particular and mathematics in general, including arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and optics, in the nineteenth century in the Indian subcontinent had a more geometric aspect and lacked philosophical depth.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Most of his material in this area is attributed to Euclid and his commentary by Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, another scholar who followed the geometrical theory of extramission (Ibid.
/ The number of propositions used from Euclid and his commentary by Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi is more than half of the propositions, which indicates the extent of the influence of Euclidean geometric principles on Junpuri's optics.
E) A Critique of the Initial Principles of Junpuri’s Optics in Comparison to Other Schools By comparing the principles that Ghulam Hussein Junpuri presented as the basis for his geometric issues of manazirs and mirrors, and also the principles that Euclid, Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham, and Tusi presented, the following results can be obtained: 1- In Junpuri’s time, the laws of reflection and refraction of light were codified based on Snell’s relation 1, which was discovered in the late 17th century by the Dutch astronomer Willebrord Snellius 2 (20-14, Wolf), but Junpuri makes no reference to this relationship or its use.
(Rashed, 464-491) 2- Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, in Tahrir al-Manazir Euclid, provided little explanation regarding Euclid’s basic principles and focused more on explaining the geometric issues of Euclidean optics.
3- The basic principles of Ptolemy and Ibn al-Haytham, which were established centuries before Junpuri, were much more precise and based on an experimental look at different states of nature, while Junpuri, like Euclid and Khwaja Tusi, sufficed with the same geometric approach.
(
, 
, 
)
