Is the Fibonacci lattice the very best way to evenly distribute N points on a sphere? So far it seems that it is the best? Over in the thread "Evenly distributing n points on a sphere" this topic is touched upon:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9600801/evenly-distributing-n-points-on-a-sphere.
But what I would like to know is: "Is the Fibonacci lattice the very best way to evenly distribute N points on a sphere?  So far it seems that it is the best.  Does anyone know of a better method?"
I have a Ph.D. in physics and may have an application for some of this research in physics.
I came across this wonderful paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.4540.pdf "Measurement of areas on a sphere using
Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices"
The paper states, "The Fibonacci lattice is a particularly appealing alternative [15, 16, 17, 23, 65, 42, 66, 67, 68, 76, 52, 28, 56, 55]. Being easy to construct, it can have any odd number of points [68], and these are evenly distributed (Fig. 1) with each point representing almost the same area. For the numerical integration of continuous functions on a sphere, it has distinct advantages over other lattices [28, 56]."
It the Fibonacci lattice the very best way to distribute N points on a sphere so that they are evenly distributed?  Is there any way that is better?
As seen above, the paper states, "with each point representing almost the same area. "
Is it impossible, in principle (except for special rare cases of N such as 4, etc.), to exactly evenly distribute N points on a sphere so that each point/region has the exact same are?
So far it seems to me that the Fibonacci lattice the very best way to distribute N points on a sphere so that they are evenly distributed.  Do you feel this to be correct?
Thanks so much!  
 A: The Fibonacci lattice is not the best way to evenly distribute points on a sphere.
The problem of distributing N points evenly on a unit sphere is only known for specific N.
Moreover, the vertices of Platonic solids are not always optimal. This is succinctly described on the Wolfram Mathworld site:

“For two points, the points should be at opposite ends of a diameter.
For four points, they should be placed at the polyhedron vertices of
an inscribed regular tetrahedron. There is no unique best solution for
five points since the distance cannot be reduced below that for six
points. For six points, they should be placed at the polyhedron
vertices of an inscribed regular octahedron. For seven points, the
best solution is four equilateral spherical triangles with angles of
80 degrees. For eight points, the best dispersal is not the polyhedron
vertices of the inscribed cube, but of a square antiprism with equal
polyhedron edges. The solution for nine points is eight equilateral
spherical triangles with angles of arcos(1/4). For 12 points, the
solution is an inscribed regular icosahedron.”

There are many approximate solvers for this ( SpherePoints[] and Offset Lattice ).
The Fibonacci Spiral is easy to program, but is not optimal.
