Comment on "Explicit Analytical Solution for Random Close Packing in $d=2$ and $d=3$"

The method, proposed in \cite{Za22} to derive the densest packing fraction of random disc and sphere packings, is shown to yield in two dimensions too high a value that (i) violates the very assumption underlying the method and (ii) corresponds to a high degree of structural order. The claim that the obtained value is supported by a specific simulation is shown to be unfounded. One source of the error is pointed out.

A recent letter titled "Explicit Analytical Solution for Random Close Packing in d=2 and d=3" published in Physical Review Letters proposes a first-principle computation of the random close packing (RCP) density in spatial dimensions d=2 and d=3. This problem has a long history of such proposals, but none capture the full picture. This paper, in particular, once generalized to all d fails to describe the known behavior of jammed systems in d>4, thus suggesting that the low-di...

We present an analytical derivation of the volume fractions for random close packing (RCP) in both $d=3$ and $d=2$, based on the same methodology. Using suitably modified nearest neigbhour statistics for hard spheres, we obtain $\phi_{\mathrm{RCP}}=0.65896$ in $d=3$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{RCP}}=0.88648$ in $d=2$. These values are well within the interval of values reported in the literature using different methods (experiments and numerical simulations) and protocols. This order-...

A Comment by R. Blumenfeld on our recent analytical solution for the random close packing density [A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 028002 (2022)] is shown to be plagued by important errors and to contain incorrect statements.

We show that very clear answers to the queries raised by D. Chen and R. Ni in their Comment on our recent paper [A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 028002 (2022)] can be found in our original paper already. The paper [A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 028002 (2022)] is free of mathematical errors, as anyone can easily verify, and all the assumptions were carefully, and critically discussed in the paper.

A recent Comment by W. T. Kranz is shown to be plagued by a serious mathematical error which makes its conclusions invalid.

I comment on Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 128}, 028002 (2022) highlighting a flaw in the derivation that led to a spurious divergent factor. This renders the derivation of the random close packing density invalid.

A Comment by Morse and Charbonneau shows that our recent analytical solution to the random close packing (RCP) problem is in good agreement with packings data in dimensions $d<6$ but deviates from the data for $d\geq6$. In this Reply we argue, using results related to the $E_{8}$ Lie group, that no RCP solution based on contact numbers and marginal stability is expected to capture RCP in large space dimensions $d \geq 8$ where a large gap exists between nearest neighbours alr...

We link the thermodynamics of colloidal suspensions to the statistics of regular and random packings. Random close packing has defied a rigorous definition yet, in three dimensions, there is near universal agreement on the volume fraction at which it occurs. We conjecture that the common value of phi_rcp, approximately 0.64, arises from a divergence in the rate at which accessible states disappear. We relate this rate to the equation of state for a hard sphere fluid on a meta...

Packings of identical objects have fascinated both scientists and laymen alike for centuries, in particular the sphere packings and the packings of identical regular tetrahedra. Mathematicians have tried for centuries to determine the densest packings; Crystallographers and chemists have been fascinated by the lattice packings for centuries as well. On the other hand, physicists, geologists, material scientists and engineers have been challenged by the mysterious random packi...