Here's another approach to fractional dimensions. Suppose you have a finite set X of states that a physical system can be in. Each state has a particular energy. The partition function Z(T) = sum_{x in X} exp(-H(x)/kT) gives us the normalization factor at a given temperature. The probability of being in the state x is described by the Gibbs distribution p(x) = exp(-H(x)/kT) / Z(T). When the temperature is infinite, every state is equally likely. If there are n states, the system behaves something like a particle in n dimensions: Z(∞) is n. When the temperature cools, high-energy states become exponentially unlikely, reducing the effective dimensionality of the system. Thin films allow low-energy electrons to move in two dimensions, but high-energy electrons can fly right off the film. Z(T) decreases continuously from n down to 1 (only the ground state is occupied) as T goes down from infinity to zero. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Marc LeBrun <mlb@well.com> wrote:
= Daniel Asimov <asimov@msri.org> wrote:
Pretending that spheres, balls, and Euclidean spaces can have real dimensions:
="Olivier GERARD" <olivier.gerard@gmail.com> Very delicate hypothesis. You would have to prove that there is a continuous family of geometrical objects, to whom volume and surface make sense, etc. and according precisely to these formulae.
="Bill Gosper" <billgosper@gmail.com> This exposes a bug in the terminology "unit ball", which really ought to mean "unit diameter ball".
I don't know balls, but, prompted by this mysterious maximum, a number of years ago I asked this list if it was always possible to construct a fractal of any given real dimension (ie we're not just restricted to values of the "classical" type of log-mumble expressions), and y'all said "yes"--and I think moreover even gave an explicit method.
Starting with such a fractal as the "space", can you then hand-wave up a suitably-constructed "unit subset" that degenerates to the Euclidean ball at integer dimensions?
The content formulae over this continua of constructions will of course likewise degenerate to the expression under discussion here at integer dimensions, but it might have additional twiddle factors that vanish at those values--hence different maxima as it interpolates in-between.
So another tack, symbolic instead of geometric: the volume formula can be constructed directly by iterated integration. I think the usual fractional iterated integration operator also just changes factorial to gamma. If that generalization is unique, it would seem that the generalized fractional dimensional geometric construction must also be. If not, the converse.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com