Planetary and atomic systems in N dimensions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around estimating the volume fraction of a human head occupied by the brain, considering a spherical model with bone thickness as a percentage of the radius. Participants express uncertainty about extending this estimation to N-dimensional space and whether the volume formula changes accordingly. The conversation also touches on the existence of stable atomic and planetary systems in dimensions greater than three and the implications for free particles in dimensions less than three. Suggestions include using Gauss's law to analyze charge fields, although clarity on the mathematical approach remains a challenge for some contributors. The thread highlights the complexity of applying traditional physics concepts to higher-dimensional frameworks.
black_squirrel
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose that a human head is a sphere with the bone thickness 10% of the radius of the
head. Find the fraction of the volume of the head occupied by the brain. Make a similar estimate (forget about factors of pi) in the N-dimensional space (d = N) in the limit N -> infinity.

For the existence of life of our type we must have atomic and planetary systems. Do stable atomic and planetary systems exist for d > 3? We also need to have free particles like electrons moving far away from atoms (for conductivity, and to have ions). Can we have them for d < 3?


The Attempt at a Solution



finding fraction of volume is simple but I don't know how you'd go about making an estimate in the N-dimensional space. would it just be r^N instead of r^3 in the volume?

For the second part, I'm not even sure what the question is trying to get at. I was thinking maybe Gauss law could be used to say that the field of charge is inversely proportional to the area of N-1 dimensional sphere surrounding it. Still that doesn't take me anywhere...any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1 dimention: a line x
2 dimensions: a square x^2
3 dimensions: a cube x^3
...
...
N dimentions: ? x^N
 
robphy said:
Check out:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=809880#post809880
and
(if you have JSTOR access)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4614(19831220)310%3A1512%3C337%3AD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

wow those are great papers but I'm having a bit of trouble following the math/physics of the second paper and the first one just kind of states Ehrenfest's findings and doesn't explain how he came at those conclusions. I'd appreciate it if you could explain it in a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top