Pi has an intriguing effect on the cult classic Doom video game ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
October 30, 2025—Mathematicians devise a new shape, groups of ants are more efficient than individuals, and is it time for a Category 6 hurricane designation? —Andrea Gawrylewski, Chief Newsletter Editor | | In the 17th century, Prince Rupert of the Rhine determined that you could drill a hole in a cube so that an identical cube could fit through it. Many similar 3D shapes were found to have this property and were called "Rupert." After centuries of shape research, in 2017, researchers announced that all 3D shapes with flat sides and no indents, known as convex polyhedrons, are Rupert. For a while, the conjecture stood. | | A new finding: But now, mathematicians have discovered a new 3D shape called a noperthedron. It has 90 vertices, 240 edges, 152 faces. No matter how each of two identical noperthedrons are shifted or rotated, one can't fall through a hole in the other. It is decidedly "non Rupert," or "nopert," the word coined by the shape's founders, and which inspired its name. | | Amanda Montañez; Source: "A Convex Polyhedron without Rupert's Property," by Jakob Steininger and Sergey Yurkevich; arxiv.org/abs/2508.18475v1, August 25, 2025 (reference). | | How they did it: The researchers built a custom computer program to sort through variations in the "cube's" possible angles of rotation. As reporter Emma Hanson describes it: They "described the set of all possible noperthedron holes as a five-dimensional cube, with each axis representing a different rotation of the polyhedron. With a clever mix of mathematical reasoning and computer programming, they discounted each area of that cube as a possibility." | | imageBROKER.com/Alamy Stock Photo | | Contrary to humans, weaver ants become more efficient when they work together. To measure this, researchers attached a force-measuring device to the end of a paper leaf and filmed weaver ants as they pulled the leaf back. The ants assembled themselves into chains of two or four. Ants on one side of the chain tugged at the leaf tip with their mandibles, while ants on the other side planted their sticky feet on the leaf to hold it still. The team found that single ants pulled 59 times their weight on average, while individuals in groups of 15 pulled 103 times their weight. The more ants in the mix, the more efficient they were. Why this is interesting: When humans join a team, each individual tends to exert less effort. This phenomenon is known as the "Ringelmann Effect," and it is also present in some non-human species. Researchers often attribute it to coordinating challenges and lack of motivation. Weaver ants, however, achieve the opposite effect. They become "superefficient" team workers. What the experts say: "Examples of true superefficiency are very limited," says ecologist Scott Powell of George Washington University, who was not involved in the study. But efficient coordination and helpful physical traits give the weaver ants an edge. —Andrea Tamayo, Newsletter Writer | | | | |
- Food technologist Naailah Ali's research focuses on the fermentation of cacao beans in Trinidad and Tobago. She aims to develop techniques that farmers can use to improve the process, a step in making cocoa and chocolate. The success of fermentation depends on climate," she says. "And with weather patterns becoming less predictable, the quality of the beans has started to decline." Nature | 3 min read
| | I was surprised to read that working in teams makes humans less efficient. One of the demotivating factors comes from the difficulty in wrangling groups of people, which is understandable. I've been thinking back on some truly productive team experiences I've had, and they were all well-organized endeavors. Do you like working on a team? Or do you prefer operating solo? | | Let me know by emailing: newsletters@sciam.com. Thanks for reading! We'll be back tomorrow with a special Halloween Today in Science. —Andrea Gawrylewski, Chief Newsletter Editor
| | | | |
Subscribe to this and all of our newsletters here. | | | | |
