4
$\begingroup$

Consider the following problem, which is a variation of the sphere packing problem and is somehow related to the kissing number problem. For a dimension $n\ge 2$ and a natural $k$, let $r=r(n,k)$ be the maximal radius of $k$ spheres (in $\mathbb{R}^n$) that can be packed into the boundary ring (is that the name of it?) of radius $2r$ of the unit sphere; that is, into the set of all points whose distance from 0 is in the interval $[1-2r, 1]$.

It is easier to explain this using examples:

  • $r(2,1)$ is 1, as the maximal radius $r$ of a single sphere that should be embedded in the subset of the unit sphere containing all points whose distance from 0 lies in the interval $[1-2r,1]$ is simply 1 (in which case, the said subset is the unit sphere itself). In fact, $r(n,1)=1$ for any $n\ge 2$.
  • $r(2,2)$ is 0.5, as one can pack 2 0.5-radius spheres inside the unit sphere. I guess $r(n,2)=0.5$ for any $n\ge 2$.
  • $r(2,3)$ is ... well, I already don't know that.

What I do know (know might be too harsh here) is that: $$\lim_{k->\infty}k\cdot r(2,k)=\pi$$

And that makes me guess $k\cdot r(2,k)$ is an increasing function, going from 1 to $\pi$. A more general limit can be described as follows: the limit of ratio of the sum of all surface areas of all packed spheres, and the surface area of the unit sphere. If we denote that ratio with $R(n,k)$, we obtain (I think) $$\lim_{k\to\infty}R(2,k)=\pi$$ and $$\lim_{k\to\infty}R(3,k)=\pi$$ but this is where it stops, as $$\lim_{k\to\infty}R(4,k)=\frac{\pi^2}{4}$$ and I think that $$\lim_{k\to\infty}R(9,k)=\frac{\pi^4}{840}$$

So my question actually consists of three sub-questions:

  • Can you imagine how $r(n,k)$ (or $R(n,k)$) looks like? Is it monotone, does it always have a limit for $k\to\infty$, can you estimate that limit with respect to $n$, etc.
  • I there any clear relation between $k\cdot r(n,k)$ and $R(n,k)$?
  • Is $$\lim_{n,k\to\infty}R(n,k) = 0,$$ and if so, do you have any intuition about it?
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I understood correctly, $r(2,k)$ should be equal to $1-1/\left(1+\sin(\pi/k)\right)$ for $k\geq 2$ (confirming your first limit being equal to $\pi$). $\endgroup$ – Peter Košinár Feb 21 '14 at 2:14
  • $\begingroup$ Also, the relation between $R(n,k)$ and $k\cdot r(n,k)$ should be just $R(n,k)=k\cdot r(n,k)^{n-1}$, since the surface area of an $n$-dimensional ball is proportional to its radius raised to $(n-1)$-th power. $\endgroup$ – Peter Košinár Feb 21 '14 at 10:25
4
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{R}_n = \lim\limits_{k\to\infty} R(n,k)$. Your numbers on $\mathcal{R}_n$ doesn't feel right for $n \ge 3$.

For any fixed $n$ and large $k$, the centers of the small spheres of radius $r$ should be constrained to a sphere of radius $1-r$. To the small spheres, the space between two spherical shell of radius $1$ and $1-2r$ will look flat. So the optimal $(r,k)$ configuration will correspond to some sort of close packing of $S^{n-2}$ in a $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.

Let $\rho_{n}$ be the optimal packing density of $S^{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $\displaystyle\sigma_n = \frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2}+1)}$ be the volume of the unit $n$-ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We know the "surface area' of the unit $n$-ball is given by $n\sigma_n$. This leads to $$\begin{align} & \sigma_{n-1} k\,r^{n-1} \approx n\sigma_n (1-r)^{n-1} \times \rho_{n-1} \\ \implies & \mathcal{R}_n = \lim_{k\to\infty} k\,r^{n-1}(n,k) \approx n\frac{\sigma_n}{\sigma_{n-1}}\rho_{n-1} = \frac{2\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}\rho_{n-1} \end{align}$$

It is known that $\rho_1 = 1$, $\displaystyle \rho_2 = \frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{3}}$, $\displaystyle \rho_3 = \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}\color{blue}{^{[1]}}$ and $\displaystyle \rho_8 \approx \frac{\pi^4}{384} ( 1 + O(10^{-14}) )\color{blue}{^{[2]}}$. This give us an estimate

$$\mathcal{R}_n \approx \begin{cases} \pi,&n = 2\\ \\ \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}},& n = 3\\ \\ \frac{\pi^2}{4\sqrt{2}}, & n = 4\\ \\ \frac{2\pi^4}{105},&n = 9 \end{cases}$$ Something very different from your guess when $n \ge 3$.

About what happens to $\mathcal{R}_n$ for large $n$, we know that for $n \ge 115$, there is an upper bound for $\rho_n$ of the form$\color{blue}{^{[3]}}$:

$$\rho_n \le 2^{-(0.5990\ldots + o(1))n}$$ This means $\mathcal{R}_n$ converges to $0$ as $n$ tends to infinity.

Notes

  • $\color{blue}{[1]}$ T.C. Hales, A proof of the Kepler conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 162 (2005), 1065-1185. MR2179728 doi:10.4007/annals.2005.162.1065.

  • $\color{blue}{[2]}$ the packing density $\frac{\pi^4}{384}$ is achieved by regular packing of spheres on an $E_8$ lattice in $\mathbb{R}^8$. The $O(10^{-14})$ error bound is given by H.Cohn and A. Kumar but I don't know the exact reference.

  • $\color{blue}{[3]}$ G.A.Kabatyanskii and V.I.Levenshetin. Bounds for packings on a sphere and in space (Russian), Problemy Peredaci Informacii 14 (1978), 3-25; English translation in Problems of Information Transmission 14 (1978), 1-17, MR0514023.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by To the small spheres, the space between two spherical shell of radius $1$ and $1−2r$ will look flat? In addition, I am not totally sure you got me right. There's only one layer of small spheres, and they "touch" the boundary of the bigger sphere. Or perhaps I didn't get you right; you've used terms I am not familiar with (close packing, packing density...) $\endgroup$ – Bach Mar 13 '14 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Bach, On the human length scale, the earth looks flat instead of a sphere. If you want to pack basket balls on a basket ball field effectively, you will just pack them as if the earth is a plane (at least locally). The same thing happens to the small spheres when $r$ is sufficiently small. About the number of layers of small spheres. Yes, there is only one layer. However, for the configuration when $r$ reaches its minimal (for given $n, k$), one will expect their center are all at a distance $1-r$ from the center and hence lies between 2 concentric spheres with radii $1$ and $1-2r$. $\endgroup$ – achille hui Mar 13 '14 at 11:20

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.