3
$\begingroup$

If you were to maximize the volume of a truncated octahedron while keeping it in completely inside a given sphere, what percentage of the sphere's volume would it take up?

This question is an extension of a larger one I've been wondering. What is the largest space-filling polyhedron of any kind that can be inscribed in a sphere? Space-filling meaning, can perfectly tile the 3D plane in Euclidean space. Would, for example, a rhombic dodecahedron maximized in a sphere take up more space than the maximized truncated octahedron?

More concretely, imagine you have spheres of a valuable material you need to pack. You can pack them more densely by cutting them in a more packable shape, thus saving more of the material, but you lose whatever you cut off. Is there a space-filling polyhedron you could cut each sphere into that contains more than ~74.048% (maximum sphere packing density) of the original sphere?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Please use the body of your Question to give a self-contained problem statement. The title is fine as a brief notice of what the Question is about, but it should not serve as the first sentence of the body of the Question. You know what you are asking, but the choppy jump to a new problem without stating fully the initial problem is quite confusing to Readers. The final paragraph suggests an entirely different problem than maximizing area, namely a volume objective. Multiple problems in one post are strongly discouraged; quality over quantity should be your goal. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Jan 14, 2022 at 17:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StinkingBishop This makes the much harder, more general problem the main focus, which was not my intention, since I think it is much less likely to be answered. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2022 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry. Rolled it back now. $\endgroup$
    – user700480
    Commented Jan 14, 2022 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ @StinkingBishop Thanks! Sorry for the trouble. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2022 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not a problem, I just know that we have this in the policy, and I would not want you to fall afoul of it: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9959/… $\endgroup$
    – user700480
    Commented Jan 14, 2022 at 18:48

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I think the thing that you're interested in here is the covering density of the sphere, rather than its packing density - this is the lowest-density arrangement of overlapping unit spheres needed to cover every point in $\mathbb{R}^3$.

In the plane, the hexagonal lattice is optimal for both packing and covering. In three dimensions, though, they differ - the FCC lattice is best for packing, but the BCC lattice (a cubic lattice along with the centers of each cube) is the lattice offering the thinnest covering density of $\frac{5\sqrt{5}\pi}{24}\approx1.4635$. (Whether a non-lattice packing could do better is an open problem, I believe - see here.)

If you take the Voronoi cells of the BCC lattice with side length $1$, you get truncated octahedra with edge length $\sqrt{2}/4$, volume $1/2$, and circumradius $\sqrt{5}/4$, thus taking up $\frac{24}{5\sqrt5\pi} \approx 0.6833$ of the sphere, which of course ends up being the reciprocal of the covering density.

This correspondence between covering density of a sphere arrangement and relative volume of the voronoi cell means that the truncated octahedron is optimal, at least among space-filling bodies which tile by translation, and that any improvement would lead to a previously-unknown thinnest sphere covering. (The converse is not necessarily true, since the Voronoi cells of a non-lattice packing don't have to be congruent.)

For reference, though, a rhombic dodecahedron with coordinates $(\pm1,\pm1,\pm1)$ and all permutations of $(\pm2,0,0)$ has volume $16$ within a sphere of radius $2$, so occupies only $\frac{3}{2\pi}\approx0.4775$ of the circumsphere.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If I'm understanding this right, does this mean the truncated octahedron is optimal among plesiohedra, but not necessarily provenly among all space-filling polyhedra (although no better polyhedron has yet been shown to exist)? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2022 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's not quite plesiohedra, which would correspond to isohedral sphere coverings (which is a superset of lattice coverings). But it is the case that no better space-filling polyhedron has been shown to exist, or it would correspond to a better (potentially non-lattice) sphere covering. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2022 at 2:39
1
$\begingroup$

The regular truncated octahedron is an Archimedean solid; eight faces are regular hexagons and six faces are squares with common edge length $a$. For example:

All permutations of $(0, ±1, ±2)$ are Cartesian coordinates of the vertices of a truncated octahedron of edge length $a = \sqrt 2$ centered at the origin.

The volume of this truncated octahedron of edge length $a$ is $V=8\sqrt 2 a^3 = 32$. Its circumscribing sphere has radius $\sqrt 5$, so volume $(4/3)\pi \cdot(5\sqrt 5)$. Consequently the sphere is filled in the ratio:

$$ \frac{32}{(4/3)\pi \cdot(5\sqrt 5)} = 0.68329204... $$

For comparison the regular octahedron inscribed in the unit sphere has a volume of $4/3$, giving a filled ratio of $1/\pi \approx 0.31831$, so truncation makes quite an improvement. Indeed the best filled ratio of a Platonic solid inscribed in a sphere is for the dodecahedron, at about $0.6649$. See the blog post: Which Platonic Solid is Most-Spherical? which references an 1841 "Penny Cyclopaedia" printed by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .