Register to reply 
Equidistant points on the suface of a sphere. 
Share this thread: 
#1
Apr314, 12:03 PM

P: 3

If we are asked to place 3 points on the surface of a sphere so that they are equidistant, it's easy to visualize that the result will be such that the three points form an equilateral triangle.
If asked to place 4 points it's easy to visualize that the result is such that the points arrange themselves into a tetrahedron. It is impossible for me to visualize what happens with 5 points, there is apparently no solution. So what would happen if we imagine an actual physical system where each of the five points has some kind of 'motor' which constantly repels it away from whichever other point it is closest to. Would the 5 points ever settle into some kind of recognisable arrangement? What we expect to see as the motorised points attempt to reach an equidistant configuration? What sort of math applies to resolving this question? 


#2
Apr314, 12:50 PM

P: 428

Another convergent configuration would be all points collapsing to their centre of mass. You could avoid this by arranging your forces to tend distances between points towards a determined finite value, rather than attempting to minimise, or maximise, them. I think there may be also the possibility of an intermediate case involving oscillations. Perhaps you could even end up with different modes of oscillation. I think a lot depends on how your motors attempt to optimise the problem. A bit inconclusive, but it's something to start from at least, if you want to do some calculations. 


#3
Apr314, 01:03 PM

P: 461

The Thomson problem is not the same, but is similar.
There is no solution for equidistance on a sphere. One needs ##n1## dimensions, where ##n## is the number of points, for all of the points to be arranged the same distance from each other. Your idea about little engines propelling points apart is not detailed enough (I think). The dynamics of these points depends on exactly they start and what "rule" is used to decide how they move. The Thomson is a possible version, but I bet you would find different solutions. It seems to me that there are two questions. 1) Is there a configuration that "minimizes distance" where we could define distance as Euclidean or perhaps some other metric? 2) If the points are started in an arbitrary configuration with some dynamical rules, will they eventually reach this equilibrium configuration? I'm guessing that the answers could be found with some basic calculus and linear algebra (and maybe a computer for assistance?). 


#4
Apr314, 01:07 PM

P: 461

Equidistant points on the suface of a sphere.



#5
Apr314, 01:13 PM

P: 428

Much of this depends on the nature of the force applied obviously, so we could easily be talking about different things. It's probably best that we go back and define the problem properly rather than going off at tangents by making over generalisations. 


#6
Apr314, 03:36 PM

P: 3

Thanks for the replies so far craigi and DrewD
It seems that that the initial condition of the points is the crucial issue in defining the problem properly. Well lets assume that the points don't have any initial velocity, and are distributed randomly. I imagine most random starting arrangements would eventually evolve into a small number of outcomes. I guess there are semi stable conditions that might be arrived at such as the suggested square based pyramid. The points in this case do not achieve equidistance but they do get to an ordered state which is close to it. I guess also, a ring of points arranged at equal intervals along the equator of the sphere may be a similar. The idea that the result could be oscillating sounds like fun, but a hell of a math problem, (for me anyway). As for the 'motors', well I initially suggested that they act so that each point moves away from the point it's closest too, which is simplest, but I am open to suggestions which are more complex if that contributes to nailing this thing down. Is chaos theory relevant?, (I understand very little of it beyond broad concepts) 


#7
Apr314, 04:33 PM

P: 428

One alternative would be to model identical springs between each pair of points, which I think would result in vibrational modes with vertices taking turns in tending towards the apex of a square based pyramid. 


#8
Apr314, 04:58 PM

P: 1

I like this question. I'll be thinking about this problem for a while.
I'm wondering about a related question. Imagine restricting the problem to only looking for solutions where the points end up in a stable, practically motionless configuration (i.e. 2 points at opposite poles, 4 points in a tetrahedron, etc). Imagine collecting all of these configurations in a book. Now imagine making another book of all of the stable configurations of points on a sphere that attract each other instead of repelling each other. Are the two books identical? Intuition says probably so, but I'm not sure how to prove it to myself. Another question. Given the sphere where points are scattered randomly and attract each other through gravity/magnetism/whatever, how do you determine the one location that they will all clump together at the end if they do not end up in a stable pattern? 


#9
Apr314, 05:10 PM

P: 428




#10
Apr314, 07:50 PM

P: 3

The problem is like trying to calculate brownian motion?
Is there any hope of at least a model to work on? I tried the springs idea, but springs which push instead of pulling work better. They don't end up with anything you could predictable though. 


#11
Apr314, 09:54 PM

P: 461

If this is a serious question, a few specific must be settled. How is distance measured. I assume Euclidean metric since this is a physical question. Next, what is the function of distance that you want to minimize/maximize? The most likely candidates would be ## F=\sum_{i,j=1}^5\frac12 (r_jr_i)^n ## where ##n## is some integer. After that is chosen, then the dynamics can be considered. The spring idea is a good one, but depending on how the springs are modeled, the answer will be different and may very well be solved by the points trivially collapsing to a single point on the sphere. You will probably also have to consider geodesics which will complicate things beyond simple Euclidean distances. It is an interesting problem, but I think it is very complicated. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Suface Area of a Section of a Sphere  Calculus & Beyond Homework  5  
Photon sphere vs horizon as a null suface  Special & General Relativity  4  
Finding The Equidistant of 2 Points  Precalculus Mathematics Homework  5  
Equidistant from 2 points  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Equation of Plane Equidistant with 2 Points  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1 