I just read about this amazing result and I have a very short question. I've read that five pieces is enough to get from one sphere to two spheres: is the underlying process sort of the same to get from one sphere to a sphere of any size (is five enough?)? Sorry if this has been asked before, I couldn't find anything.

  • $\begingroup$ Five is enough for doubling the volume (i.e. two spheres), if you want more then you need more parts. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 18 '13 at 14:37

To begin with, see here.

I do not know of a written account where details are worked out more precisely, but the basic idea is the following: Lebesgue outer measure on $\mathbb R^n$, $\mu^*$, is defined for all subsets of $\mathbb R^n$, whether measurable or not, extends Lebesgue measure $\mu$, and satisfies monotonicity: $\mu^*(A)\le\mu^*(B)$ for $A\subseteq B$, and subadditivity: $\mu^*(\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}A_n)\le\sum_n\mu^*(A_n)$.

Suppose a sphere of volume $V$ is split into $k$ pieces $A_i$. Then $\mu^*(A_i)\le V$ for all $i$, so $\sum_i\mu^*(A_i)\le kV$, that is, no more than a sphere of volume at most $kV$ (or $k$ spheres of the same radius as the original) can be obtained if only $k$ pieces are used. In the link given above, Blackadar mentions that, in his estimation, about $10^{30}$ pieces are needed to turn a pea-sized ball into one of the size of the sun.

Barry Cipra pointed out in the comments that the outer measure argument is an overkill for the pea-sun analysis: If a sphere $S$ has diameter larger than $kd$, where $d$ is the diameter of the original sphere $s$, then along any diameter it has at least $k+1$ points at distance larger than $d$ from each other so, if $S$ is obtained by splitting and rearranging $s$, at least $k+1$ pieces are needed.

We can say a bit more: For $n>1$, let $f(n)$ be the smallest $k$ such that a solid sphere can be split into $k$ pieces that can be rearranged to form $n$ solid spheres of the same radius as the original. Each sphere must use at least $2$ pieces, so $f(n)\ge 2n$, and we know that $f(2)=5$. It would be tempting to say that $f(n)\le 2n+1$: For example, start with a sphere, split into $5$ pieces, and rearrange, so we have pieces $A,B,C,D,E$, with $A,B$ forming a sphere and $C,D,E$ another. (It would be natural to expect that) we can split $E$ into three pieces, isomorphic to $A,B,E$, and further rearrange; but this is a bit careless: Even if $E$ is chosen of size continuum, the pieces $C,D$ must be moved in this process, and end up being split as well. The best I can see at the moment is $f(n)\le 5n-2$ for $n>2$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Cool! What about turning a lead atom into a gold atom? $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Dec 18 '13 at 15:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Igor: That's easy. Just use a particle accelerator. Destroy the lead and create gold! No need to use the axiom of choice there! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 18 '13 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ A cruder estimate, not using any measure theory, is that if a sphere of radius $d$ is split into $k$ pieces that reassemble into a sphere of radius $D$, then $D\le kd$. $\endgroup$ – Barry Cipra Dec 18 '13 at 21:42
  • $\begingroup$ @BarryCipra, how do you argue about this without measure theoretic ideas? $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 18 '13 at 21:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndresCaicedo, I was mainly referring to your $\mu^*$'s. If you have a sphere of diameter greater than $kd$, then you can pick $k+1$ points (along a diameter) each of which is at a distance greater than $d$ from the others, so no two of which can come from the same piece of the sphere of diameter $d$. $\endgroup$ – Barry Cipra Dec 18 '13 at 22:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.