A sphere packing is an arrangement of congruent closed balls of positive radius
with pairwise disjoint interiors. Its packing
density
is the asymptotic fraction of space
occupied by the balls. If the limiting fraction does not
exist, an upper limiting density can be used. For periodic packings,
the density can be computed in a unit cell. In three
dimensions, examples include packings on simple and body-centered cubic
lattices, cubic close packing, and hexagonal
close packing. It was hypothesized by Kepler in 1611 that close packing (cubic
or hexagonal, which have equivalent packing densities) is the densest possible, and
this assertion is known as the Kepler conjecture.
The problem of finding the densest packing of spheres (not necessarily periodic)
is therefore known as the Kepler problem, where
(OEIS A093825; Steinhaus 1999, p. 202; Wells 1986, p. 29; Wells 1991, p. 237).
In 1831, Gauss managed to prove that the face-centered cubic is the densest lattice packing in three dimensions (Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 9), but the general conjecture remained open for many decades.
While the Kepler conjecture is intuitively obvious, the proof remained surprisingly elusive. Rogers (1958), a well-known researcher on
the problem, remarked that "many mathematicians believe, and all physicists
know" that the actual answer is 74.048% (Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 3).
For packings in three dimensions, C. A. Rogers (1958) showed that the maximum
possible packing density satisfies
(Le Lionnais 1983), and this result was subsequently improved to 77.844% (Lindsey 1986), then 77.836% (Muder 1988). A proof of the full conjecture was published by Hales (2005, p. 1067).
Interestingly, the packing density in ellipsoid packing can exceed .
The maximum number of equivalent spheres (or -dimensional hyperspheres) which can touch an equivalent sphere
(hypersphere) without intersections is called the
-dimensional kissing number.
The packing densities for several types of sphere packings are summarized in the following table. In a 1972 personal communication to Martin Gardner, Ulam conjectured that in their densest packing, spheres allow more empty space than the densest packing of any other identical convex solids (Gardner 2001, p. 135).
| packing | analytic | reference | |
| reported rigid packing | -- | 0.0555 | Gardner (1966) |
| tetrahedral packing | 0.3401 | Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen (1999, pp. 48-50) | |
| cubic lattice | 0.5236 | ||
| simple hexagonal lattice | 0.6046 | ||
| random (typical) | -- | 0.6400 | Jaeger and Nagel (1992) |
| face-centered cubic close packing | 0.7405 | Steinhaus (1999, p. 202), Wells (1986, p. 29; 1991, p. 237) | |
| body-centered cubic lattice | 0.6802 | ||
| hexagonal close packing | 0.7405 | Steinhaus (1999, p. 202), Wells (1986, p. 29; 1991, p. 237) |
Gardner (1966) reported a rigid packing with packing density ,
significantly lower than that reported by Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen (1999, p. 51).
A necessary condition for each sphere to be unable to
move while all other spheres are held fixed is that it
have at least four contacts and that all its contact directions, taken together,
are not contained in a closed hemisphere. This condition
alone does not establish rigidity against collective motions.
Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen (1999, pp. 48-50) consider a tetrahedral packing in which each sphere touches four neighbors and the density
is .
Its centers form two translates of a face-centered cubic lattice, rather than a point
lattice. This is the periodic arrangement formed by carbon atoms in a diamond
(Conway and Sloane 1993, p. 113).
Densities obtained by protocols for random close packing depend on the procedure used. Torquato et al. (2000) discuss values around 0.60, 0.642-0.649, and 0.68 and argue against a universal random close packing density. Compressing a random packing gives polyhedra with an average of 13.3 faces (Coxeter 1958, 1961).
For sphere packing inside a cube, see Goldberg (1971), Schaer (1966), Gensane (2004), and Friedman. Gensane (2004, pp. 1 and 5) improved Goldberg's
configurations for ,
12, and all
from
to
except for
.
The optimality of these configurations was unproved.