Sphere with shell, so that the volume equals two times the original sphere












1












$begingroup$


I was wondering about the following:



Consider a sphere with radius $r$, then the volume equals $frac{4}{3}pi r^3$. Now consider to cover this sphere with a shell of thickness $h$. Then the new volume becomes $frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3$. I was wondering if we can compute the value of $h$ for which the new sphere has twice the volume of the original sphere. This leads to the following expression



$$frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3 = frac{8}{3}pi r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2+r^3 = 2 r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2-r^3 = 0$$

This is a cubic polynomial, with coefficients $(1,3r,3r^2,-r^3)$. I was wondering if there exists an easy expression for these kind of cubics, for easiness, it may be assumed that $r$ is integer.



Seeing the origin of this question I am also interested in finding the real root of the cubic. It would be nice if this is an relative easy expression, which does not need for the use of, for example, Cardano's method.



Edit:
Thanks for all the answers. I was a bit vague on what I meant with easy expression, to me the answer is rather simple. I was afraid that Cardano would lead to nested roots, or maybe roots of $r$, which is not the case. I am interested in being able to do some "on the back of an envelope" calculations, so since $2^{1/3}-1$ is just a constant factor, this is easy enough for me.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:15










  • $begingroup$
    In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
    $endgroup$
    – User123456789
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:21










  • $begingroup$
    Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 4 '18 at 12:28
















1












$begingroup$


I was wondering about the following:



Consider a sphere with radius $r$, then the volume equals $frac{4}{3}pi r^3$. Now consider to cover this sphere with a shell of thickness $h$. Then the new volume becomes $frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3$. I was wondering if we can compute the value of $h$ for which the new sphere has twice the volume of the original sphere. This leads to the following expression



$$frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3 = frac{8}{3}pi r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2+r^3 = 2 r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2-r^3 = 0$$

This is a cubic polynomial, with coefficients $(1,3r,3r^2,-r^3)$. I was wondering if there exists an easy expression for these kind of cubics, for easiness, it may be assumed that $r$ is integer.



Seeing the origin of this question I am also interested in finding the real root of the cubic. It would be nice if this is an relative easy expression, which does not need for the use of, for example, Cardano's method.



Edit:
Thanks for all the answers. I was a bit vague on what I meant with easy expression, to me the answer is rather simple. I was afraid that Cardano would lead to nested roots, or maybe roots of $r$, which is not the case. I am interested in being able to do some "on the back of an envelope" calculations, so since $2^{1/3}-1$ is just a constant factor, this is easy enough for me.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:15










  • $begingroup$
    In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
    $endgroup$
    – User123456789
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:21










  • $begingroup$
    Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 4 '18 at 12:28














1












1








1


0



$begingroup$


I was wondering about the following:



Consider a sphere with radius $r$, then the volume equals $frac{4}{3}pi r^3$. Now consider to cover this sphere with a shell of thickness $h$. Then the new volume becomes $frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3$. I was wondering if we can compute the value of $h$ for which the new sphere has twice the volume of the original sphere. This leads to the following expression



$$frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3 = frac{8}{3}pi r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2+r^3 = 2 r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2-r^3 = 0$$

This is a cubic polynomial, with coefficients $(1,3r,3r^2,-r^3)$. I was wondering if there exists an easy expression for these kind of cubics, for easiness, it may be assumed that $r$ is integer.



Seeing the origin of this question I am also interested in finding the real root of the cubic. It would be nice if this is an relative easy expression, which does not need for the use of, for example, Cardano's method.



Edit:
Thanks for all the answers. I was a bit vague on what I meant with easy expression, to me the answer is rather simple. I was afraid that Cardano would lead to nested roots, or maybe roots of $r$, which is not the case. I am interested in being able to do some "on the back of an envelope" calculations, so since $2^{1/3}-1$ is just a constant factor, this is easy enough for me.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I was wondering about the following:



Consider a sphere with radius $r$, then the volume equals $frac{4}{3}pi r^3$. Now consider to cover this sphere with a shell of thickness $h$. Then the new volume becomes $frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3$. I was wondering if we can compute the value of $h$ for which the new sphere has twice the volume of the original sphere. This leads to the following expression



$$frac{4}{3}pi(r+h)^3 = frac{8}{3}pi r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2+r^3 = 2 r^3\
h^3 + 3h^2r + 3hr^2-r^3 = 0$$

This is a cubic polynomial, with coefficients $(1,3r,3r^2,-r^3)$. I was wondering if there exists an easy expression for these kind of cubics, for easiness, it may be assumed that $r$ is integer.



Seeing the origin of this question I am also interested in finding the real root of the cubic. It would be nice if this is an relative easy expression, which does not need for the use of, for example, Cardano's method.



Edit:
Thanks for all the answers. I was a bit vague on what I meant with easy expression, to me the answer is rather simple. I was afraid that Cardano would lead to nested roots, or maybe roots of $r$, which is not the case. I am interested in being able to do some "on the back of an envelope" calculations, so since $2^{1/3}-1$ is just a constant factor, this is easy enough for me.







polynomials spheres cubic-equations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 4 '18 at 10:09







User123456789

















asked Dec 4 '18 at 9:03









User123456789User123456789

457314




457314








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:15










  • $begingroup$
    In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
    $endgroup$
    – User123456789
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:21










  • $begingroup$
    Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 4 '18 at 12:28














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:15










  • $begingroup$
    In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
    $endgroup$
    – User123456789
    Dec 4 '18 at 9:21










  • $begingroup$
    Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Dec 4 '18 at 12:28








1




1




$begingroup$
I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 4 '18 at 9:15




$begingroup$
I think you can assume $r=1$ here. If you do, does the resulting cubic have a rational root [it could only be 1 or -1]? If no rational root you need Cardano or the like.
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 4 '18 at 9:15












$begingroup$
In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
$endgroup$
– User123456789
Dec 4 '18 at 9:21




$begingroup$
In this case, it has no real solution $p(1)=6$ and $p(-1)=-2$. Then we do need Cardano indeed, but I do not see how this holds for every choice of $r$.
$endgroup$
– User123456789
Dec 4 '18 at 9:21












$begingroup$
Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Dec 4 '18 at 12:28




$begingroup$
Regarding your edit: I think the "missing complication" might be hidden away in showing rigorously that using a scale factor is valid—eg by filling an object with progressively smaller cubes and showing that their total volume converges to that of the object, and finding the requirements for it to work. (For example there might be weird fractal shapes where it goes wrong.)
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Dec 4 '18 at 12:28










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

It is easy to see that $h=(sqrt[3]2-1)r.$ In order for the 'thickened' sphere to have double the volume of the original one, its radius must be $sqrt[3]2$ times as big as the original, as the volume is a homegenous function of degree 3 of the radius.



I don't think there is an 'easy' way to find that solution from the equation, although applying Cardano should of course get that result.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    $(r+h)^3 = 2r^3$



    $Rightarrow left(1+frac{h}{r}right)^3=2$



    $Rightarrow 1 + frac{h}{r} = sqrt[3]{2}$



    $Rightarrow h = r(sqrt[3]{2} -1)$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Easy method: doubling the volume while preserving the shape means multiplying linear dimensions by the cube root of 2. So
      $$h+r=sqrt[3]{2}r$$
      and so
      $$h=(sqrt[3]{2}-1)r$$
      by a couple of lines of algebra.



      The key to keeping it simple is realising that you don't need the volume formula at all, just a scale factor.



      For the other two solutions, just put the non-real values of $sqrt[3]{2}$ in the result above. Then you'll at least have the solutions to your cubic, and that might help in thinking how to get them from it.



      The non-real roots of 2 can be found easily if you know that the $n$th roots of a positive number $a$ are equally spaced on a circle of radius $sqrt[n]{a}$ on the complex plane. A bit of geometry, or knowing the sine and cosine of 120°, gives the two non-real cube roots of 2 as $$frac{sqrt[3]{2}}{2}left(-1pm isqrt 3right).$$



      Edit: I think the "missing complication" is probably in proving rigorously that using a scale factor is valid for problems like this. For example you might end up having to define what volume is, in a way that still works for weird fractal shapes.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025315%2fsphere-with-shell-so-that-the-volume-equals-two-times-the-original-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        1












        $begingroup$

        It is easy to see that $h=(sqrt[3]2-1)r.$ In order for the 'thickened' sphere to have double the volume of the original one, its radius must be $sqrt[3]2$ times as big as the original, as the volume is a homegenous function of degree 3 of the radius.



        I don't think there is an 'easy' way to find that solution from the equation, although applying Cardano should of course get that result.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          1












          $begingroup$

          It is easy to see that $h=(sqrt[3]2-1)r.$ In order for the 'thickened' sphere to have double the volume of the original one, its radius must be $sqrt[3]2$ times as big as the original, as the volume is a homegenous function of degree 3 of the radius.



          I don't think there is an 'easy' way to find that solution from the equation, although applying Cardano should of course get that result.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            It is easy to see that $h=(sqrt[3]2-1)r.$ In order for the 'thickened' sphere to have double the volume of the original one, its radius must be $sqrt[3]2$ times as big as the original, as the volume is a homegenous function of degree 3 of the radius.



            I don't think there is an 'easy' way to find that solution from the equation, although applying Cardano should of course get that result.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            It is easy to see that $h=(sqrt[3]2-1)r.$ In order for the 'thickened' sphere to have double the volume of the original one, its radius must be $sqrt[3]2$ times as big as the original, as the volume is a homegenous function of degree 3 of the radius.



            I don't think there is an 'easy' way to find that solution from the equation, although applying Cardano should of course get that result.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 4 '18 at 9:56









            IngixIngix

            3,409146




            3,409146























                2












                $begingroup$

                $(r+h)^3 = 2r^3$



                $Rightarrow left(1+frac{h}{r}right)^3=2$



                $Rightarrow 1 + frac{h}{r} = sqrt[3]{2}$



                $Rightarrow h = r(sqrt[3]{2} -1)$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  $(r+h)^3 = 2r^3$



                  $Rightarrow left(1+frac{h}{r}right)^3=2$



                  $Rightarrow 1 + frac{h}{r} = sqrt[3]{2}$



                  $Rightarrow h = r(sqrt[3]{2} -1)$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    $(r+h)^3 = 2r^3$



                    $Rightarrow left(1+frac{h}{r}right)^3=2$



                    $Rightarrow 1 + frac{h}{r} = sqrt[3]{2}$



                    $Rightarrow h = r(sqrt[3]{2} -1)$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    $(r+h)^3 = 2r^3$



                    $Rightarrow left(1+frac{h}{r}right)^3=2$



                    $Rightarrow 1 + frac{h}{r} = sqrt[3]{2}$



                    $Rightarrow h = r(sqrt[3]{2} -1)$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 4 '18 at 10:02









                    gandalf61gandalf61

                    8,011625




                    8,011625























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Easy method: doubling the volume while preserving the shape means multiplying linear dimensions by the cube root of 2. So
                        $$h+r=sqrt[3]{2}r$$
                        and so
                        $$h=(sqrt[3]{2}-1)r$$
                        by a couple of lines of algebra.



                        The key to keeping it simple is realising that you don't need the volume formula at all, just a scale factor.



                        For the other two solutions, just put the non-real values of $sqrt[3]{2}$ in the result above. Then you'll at least have the solutions to your cubic, and that might help in thinking how to get them from it.



                        The non-real roots of 2 can be found easily if you know that the $n$th roots of a positive number $a$ are equally spaced on a circle of radius $sqrt[n]{a}$ on the complex plane. A bit of geometry, or knowing the sine and cosine of 120°, gives the two non-real cube roots of 2 as $$frac{sqrt[3]{2}}{2}left(-1pm isqrt 3right).$$



                        Edit: I think the "missing complication" is probably in proving rigorously that using a scale factor is valid for problems like this. For example you might end up having to define what volume is, in a way that still works for weird fractal shapes.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Easy method: doubling the volume while preserving the shape means multiplying linear dimensions by the cube root of 2. So
                          $$h+r=sqrt[3]{2}r$$
                          and so
                          $$h=(sqrt[3]{2}-1)r$$
                          by a couple of lines of algebra.



                          The key to keeping it simple is realising that you don't need the volume formula at all, just a scale factor.



                          For the other two solutions, just put the non-real values of $sqrt[3]{2}$ in the result above. Then you'll at least have the solutions to your cubic, and that might help in thinking how to get them from it.



                          The non-real roots of 2 can be found easily if you know that the $n$th roots of a positive number $a$ are equally spaced on a circle of radius $sqrt[n]{a}$ on the complex plane. A bit of geometry, or knowing the sine and cosine of 120°, gives the two non-real cube roots of 2 as $$frac{sqrt[3]{2}}{2}left(-1pm isqrt 3right).$$



                          Edit: I think the "missing complication" is probably in proving rigorously that using a scale factor is valid for problems like this. For example you might end up having to define what volume is, in a way that still works for weird fractal shapes.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            Easy method: doubling the volume while preserving the shape means multiplying linear dimensions by the cube root of 2. So
                            $$h+r=sqrt[3]{2}r$$
                            and so
                            $$h=(sqrt[3]{2}-1)r$$
                            by a couple of lines of algebra.



                            The key to keeping it simple is realising that you don't need the volume formula at all, just a scale factor.



                            For the other two solutions, just put the non-real values of $sqrt[3]{2}$ in the result above. Then you'll at least have the solutions to your cubic, and that might help in thinking how to get them from it.



                            The non-real roots of 2 can be found easily if you know that the $n$th roots of a positive number $a$ are equally spaced on a circle of radius $sqrt[n]{a}$ on the complex plane. A bit of geometry, or knowing the sine and cosine of 120°, gives the two non-real cube roots of 2 as $$frac{sqrt[3]{2}}{2}left(-1pm isqrt 3right).$$



                            Edit: I think the "missing complication" is probably in proving rigorously that using a scale factor is valid for problems like this. For example you might end up having to define what volume is, in a way that still works for weird fractal shapes.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            Easy method: doubling the volume while preserving the shape means multiplying linear dimensions by the cube root of 2. So
                            $$h+r=sqrt[3]{2}r$$
                            and so
                            $$h=(sqrt[3]{2}-1)r$$
                            by a couple of lines of algebra.



                            The key to keeping it simple is realising that you don't need the volume formula at all, just a scale factor.



                            For the other two solutions, just put the non-real values of $sqrt[3]{2}$ in the result above. Then you'll at least have the solutions to your cubic, and that might help in thinking how to get them from it.



                            The non-real roots of 2 can be found easily if you know that the $n$th roots of a positive number $a$ are equally spaced on a circle of radius $sqrt[n]{a}$ on the complex plane. A bit of geometry, or knowing the sine and cosine of 120°, gives the two non-real cube roots of 2 as $$frac{sqrt[3]{2}}{2}left(-1pm isqrt 3right).$$



                            Edit: I think the "missing complication" is probably in proving rigorously that using a scale factor is valid for problems like this. For example you might end up having to define what volume is, in a way that still works for weird fractal shapes.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Dec 4 '18 at 16:35

























                            answered Dec 4 '18 at 10:04









                            timtfjtimtfj

                            1,353318




                            1,353318






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025315%2fsphere-with-shell-so-that-the-volume-equals-two-times-the-original-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Aardman Animations

                                Are they similar matrix

                                “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis