Maths secrets of M&Ms revealed

[Analog]

M&M sweets pack together more densely than perfect spheres when randomly jumbled in a container, scientists say.
Same-sized spheres were previously thought to have the highest "packing fraction" - the relative density of objects when shoved in a container.

US scientists compared the packing densities of M&Ms with those of ball bearings in different containers.

Computer simulations confirmed the findings, which the team report in the current issue of the journal Science.

Salvatore Torquato of Princeton University in New Jersey, US, and colleagues used a 9cm by 9cm square box and three round flasks of different sizes to investigate the conundrum.

The researchers filled these containers with M&M sweets and determined the packing fractions for them. They measured these for both the "regular" and "mini" varieties of the chocolates.

Computer simulation

Then they compared these values with those obtained when the same containers were filled with 3.1mm ball bearings.


Computer simulations helped the scientists study the phenomenon
The results showed that M&Ms packed at higher densities than ball bearings in all containers tested.

To better understand the principle, the researchers developed a computer simulation that allowed them to generate any shape and test its packing density.


Text

 

[ThaGrandCow]

I can't see how this wasn't just common sense. I've got an even better one: tiny cubes pack better than anything that has rounded edges.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
I can't see how this wasn't just common sense. I've got an even better one: tiny cubes pack better than anything that has rounded edges.

But not when "randomly jumbled into a container"

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
I can't see how this wasn't just common sense. I've got an even better one: tiny cubes pack better than anything that has rounded edges.

"...when randomly jumbled..."

 

[TGregg]

I got some defective M&Ms yesterday, they were labeled W&W.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: TGregg
I got some defective M&Ms yesterday, they were labeled W&W.

Dude. You ruined my day with your corny sense of humor!

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: TGregg
I got some defective M&Ms yesterday, they were labeled W&W.

Dude. You ruined my day with your corny sense of humor!

Just because they are your initials

 

[zimu]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: TGregg
I got some defective M&Ms yesterday, they were labeled W&W.

Dude. You ruined my day with your corny sense of humor!

 

[edro]

I thought that was pretty much common sense too. An ellipse is more efficient than a circle... or is it?

 

[zimu]

Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
I can't see how this wasn't just common sense. I've got an even better one: tiny cubes pack better than anything that has rounded edges.

"...when randomly jumbled..."

exactly what i was just about to say too... if you take a bunch of cubes you won't see them all lining up perfectly, you'll have edges against each other etc., and you'll end up wasting a lot more space.

i'm sure scientists thought of your theory say... a couple of hundred years ago.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Just eat the damn M&Ms and enjoy them. Why not use something synthetic to test with? Why waste good candy on stupid experiments?

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: TGregg
I got some defective M&Ms yesterday, they were labeled W&W.

was the little '&' thing upside down too? That happened to me once.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Just eat the damn M&Ms and enjoy them. Why not use something synthetic to test with? Why waste good candy on stupid experiments?

Because it's more expensive to make metal M&Ms.

 

[Tom]

they should try Pringles.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Just eat the damn M&Ms and enjoy them. Why not use something synthetic to test with? Why waste good candy on stupid experiments?

Many industrial applications depend on the packing density of columns. A higher density filling (which is frequently randomly dumped in to ensure fluid won't develop channels as it flows through) could affect the bottom line of an industry by millions of dollars. The false assumption that a sphere is the most dense packing when randomly placed in a container is very important.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: zimu

Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
I can't see how this wasn't just common sense. I've got an even better one: tiny cubes pack better than anything that has rounded edges.

"...when randomly jumbled..."

exactly what i was just about to say too... if you take a bunch of cubes you won't see them all lining up perfectly, you'll have edges against each other etc., and you'll end up wasting a lot more space.

i'm sure scientists thought of your theory say... a couple of hundred years ago.

Not if you shake them into position.