Fermi problem: Difference between revisions

From HandWiki
imported>QCDvac
change
 
change
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Estimation problem in physics or engineering education}}
{{Short description|Estimation problem in physics or engineering education}}


In [[Physics:Physics|physics]] or [[Engineering:Engineering|engineering]] education, a '''Fermi problem''' (or '''Fermi quiz''', '''Fermi question''', '''Fermi estimate'''), also known as a '''order-of-magnitude problem''' (or '''order-of-magnitude estimate''', '''order estimation'''), is an [[Estimation theory|estimation]] problem designed to teach [[Dimensional analysis|dimensional analysis]] or [[Approximation|approximation]] of extreme scientific calculations, and such a problem is usually a [[Back-of-the-envelope calculation|back-of-the-envelope calculation]]. The estimation technique is named after physicist [[Biography:Enrico Fermi|Enrico Fermi]] as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their [[Variance|variance]] or lower and upper bounds. In some cases, order-of-magnitude estimates can also be derived using [[Dimensional analysis|dimensional analysis]].
A '''Fermi problem''' (or '''Fermi question''', '''Fermi quiz'''), also known as an '''order-of-magnitude problem''', is an [[Estimation theory|estimation]] problem in [[HandWiki:Physics|physics]] or [[Engineering:Engineering|engineering]] education, designed to teach [[Dimensional analysis|dimensional analysis]] or [[Approximation|approximation]] of extreme scientific calculations. Fermi problems are usually [[Back-of-the-envelope calculation|back-of-the-envelope calculation]]s. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their [[Variance|variance]] or lower and upper bounds. In some cases, order-of-magnitude estimates can also be derived using [[Dimensional analysis|dimensional analysis]]. A '''Fermi estimate''' (or '''order-of-magnitude estimate''', '''order estimation''') is an estimate of an extreme scientific calculation.


== Historical background ==
== Historical background ==
An example is [[Biography:Enrico Fermi|Enrico Fermi]]'s estimate of the strength of the [[Engineering:Nuclear weapon|atomic bomb]] that detonated at the Trinity test, based on the distance traveled by pieces of paper he dropped from his hand during the blast. Fermi's estimate of 10 kilotons of TNT was well within an order of magnitude of the now-accepted value of 21 kilotons.<ref name=weapons-2-2005>{{cite journal|title=A Backward Glance: Eyewitnesses to Trinity|url=https://www.lanl.gov/orgs/padwp/pdfs/11nwj2-05.pdf|journal=Nuclear Weapons Journal|issue=2|publisher=Los Alamos National Laboratory|access-date=27 October 2022|page=45|year=2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Hans Christian |last=Von Baeyer |title=How Fermi Would Have Fixed It |journal=The Sciences |date=September 1988 |volume=28 |issue=5 |doi=10.1002/j.2326-1951.1988.tb03037.x |pages=2–4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Fermi Solution: Essays on Science |first=Hans Christian |last=Von Baeyer |chapter=The Fermi Solution |pages=3–12 |publisher=Dover Publications |date=2001 |isbn=9780486417073 |oclc=775985788 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VhJr9Qx8ohsC&pg=PA3}}</ref>
The estimation technique is named after physicist [[Biography:Enrico Fermi|Enrico Fermi]] as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. An example is [[Biography:Enrico Fermi|Enrico Fermi]]'s estimate of the strength of the [[Engineering:Nuclear weapon|atomic bomb]] that detonated at the Trinity test, based on the distance traveled by pieces of paper he dropped from his hand during the blast. Fermi's estimate of 10 kilotons of TNT was well within an order of magnitude of the now-accepted value of 21 kilotons.<ref name=weapons-2-2005>{{cite journal|title=A Backward Glance: Eyewitnesses to Trinity|url=https://www.lanl.gov/orgs/padwp/pdfs/11nwj2-05.pdf|journal=Nuclear Weapons Journal|issue=2|publisher=Los Alamos National Laboratory|access-date=27 October 2022|page=45|year=2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Hans Christian |last=Von Baeyer |title=How Fermi Would Have Fixed It |journal=The Sciences |date=September 1988 |volume=28 |issue=5 |doi=10.1002/j.2326-1951.1988.tb03037.x |pages=2–4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Fermi Solution: Essays on Science |first=Hans Christian |last=Von Baeyer |chapter=The Fermi Solution |pages=3–12 |publisher=Dover |date=2001 |isbn=978-0-486-41707-3 |oclc=775985788 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VhJr9Qx8ohsC&pg=PA3}}</ref>
 
== Justification ==
Fermi estimates generally work because the estimations of the individual terms are often close to correct, and overestimates and underestimates help cancel each other out. That is, if there is no consistent bias, a Fermi calculation that involves the multiplication of several estimated factors (such as the number of piano tuners in Chicago) will probably be more accurate than might be first supposed.
 
In detail, multiplying estimates corresponds to adding their logarithms; thus one obtains a sort of [[Wiener process]] or [[Random walk|random walk]] on the [[Logarithmic scale|logarithmic scale]], which diffuses as <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (in number of terms ''n''). In discrete terms, the number of overestimates minus underestimates will have a [[Binomial distribution|binomial distribution]]. In continuous terms, if one makes a Fermi estimate of ''n'' steps, with [[Standard deviation|standard deviation]] ''σ'' units on the log scale from the actual value, then the overall estimate will have standard deviation <math>\sigma\sqrt{n}</math>, since the standard deviation of a sum scales as <math>\sqrt{n}</math> in the number of summands.
 
For instance, if one makes a 9-step Fermi estimate, at each step overestimating or underestimating the correct number by a factor of 2 (or with a standard deviation 2), then after 9 steps the standard error will have grown by a logarithmic factor of <math>\sqrt{9} = 3</math>, so 2<sup>3</sup> = 8. Thus one will expect to be within {{frac|8}} to 8 times the correct value – within an [[Order of magnitude|order of magnitude]], and much less than the worst case of erring by a factor of 2<sup>9</sup> = 512 (about 2.71 orders of magnitude). If one has a shorter chain or estimates more accurately, the overall estimate will be correspondingly better.


==Examples==
==Examples==
Line 10: Line 17:


Example questions given by the official Fermi Competition:{{huh|date=June 2023}}
Example questions given by the official Fermi Competition:{{huh|date=June 2023}}
{{block quote|"If the mass of one teaspoon of water could be converted entirely into energy in the form of heat, what volume of water, initially at room temperature, could it bring to a boil? (litres)."{{pb}}"How much does the Thames River heat up in going over the Fanshawe Dam? (Celsius degrees)."{{pb}}"What is the mass of all the automobiles scrapped in North America this month? (kilograms)."<ref>{{cite web |title=Fermi Questions |year=2012 |last=Weinstein |first=L.B.| publisher=Old Dominion University.|url=https://www.lions.odu.edu/~lweinste/wag.html |access-date=27 October 2022}}</ref><ref>Fermi Questions. Richard K Curtis. 2001.</ref>}}
{{block quote|"If the mass of one teaspoon of water could be converted entirely into energy in the form of heat, what volume of water, initially at room temperature, could it bring to a boil? (litres)."{{pb}}"How much does the Thames River heat up in going over the Fanshawe Dam? (Celsius degrees)."{{pb}}"What is the mass of all the automobiles scrapped in North America this month? (kilograms)."<ref>{{cite web |title=Fermi Questions |year=2012 |last=Weinstein |first=L.B.| publisher=Old Dominion University.|url=https://www.lions.odu.edu/~lweinste/wag.html |access-date=27 October 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Fermi Questions |first=Richard K. |last=Curtis |date=2001 |publisher=Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Western Ontario |url=https://tvsef.ca/soevents/events/puzzles/fermi_questions.html}}</ref>}}


Possibly the most famous Fermi Question is the [[Astronomy:Drake equation|Drake equation]], which seeks to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy. The basic question of why, if there were a significant number of such civilizations, human civilization has never encountered any others is called the [[Astronomy:Fermi paradox|Fermi paradox]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Great Silence: Science and Philosophy of Fermi's Paradox |first=Milan M. |last=Ćirković |publisher=Oxford University Press |date= 10 May 2018 |isbn=9780199646302}}</ref>
Possibly the most famous order-of-magnitude problem is the [[Astronomy:Fermi paradox|Fermi paradox]], which considers the odds of a significant number of intelligent civilizations existing in the galaxy, and ponders the apparent contradiction of human civilization never having encountered any. A well-known attempt to ponder this paradox through the lens of a Fermi estimate is the [[Astronomy:Drake equation|Drake equation]], which seeks to estimate the number of such civilizations present in the galaxy.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Great Silence: Science and Philosophy of Fermi's Paradox |first=Milan M. |last=Ćirković |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2018 |isbn=978-0-19-964630-2 |oclc=1032811202 |page=95– |chapter=3.9 The Drake equation, for good or bad |chapter-url={{GBurl|_npVDwAAQBAJ|p=95}}}}</ref>


==Advantages and scope==
==Advantages and scope==
Scientists often look for Fermi estimates of the answer to a problem before turning to more sophisticated methods to calculate a precise answer. This provides a useful check on the results. While the estimate is almost certainly incorrect, it is also a simple calculation that allows for easy error checking, and to find faulty assumptions if the figure produced is far beyond what we might reasonably expect. By contrast, precise calculations can be extremely complex but with the expectation that the answer they produce is correct. The far larger number of factors and operations involved can obscure a very significant error, either in mathematical process or in the assumptions the equation is based on, but the result may still be assumed to be right because it has been derived from a precise formula that is expected to yield good results. Without a reasonable frame of reference to work from it is seldom clear if a result is acceptably precise or is many degrees of magnitude (tens or hundreds of times) too big or too small. The Fermi estimation gives a quick, simple way to obtain this frame of reference for what might reasonably be expected to be the answer.
Scientists often look for Fermi estimates<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fermi questions |url=https://www.dam.brown.edu/math-coop/presentations/Fermi.pdf}}</ref> of the answer to a problem before turning to more sophisticated methods to calculate a precise answer. This provides a useful check on the results. While the estimate is almost certainly incorrect, it is also a simple calculation that allows for easy error checking, and to find faulty assumptions if the figure produced is far beyond what we might reasonably expect. By contrast, precise calculations can be extremely complex but with the expectation that the answer they produce is correct. The far larger number of factors and operations involved can obscure a very significant error, either in mathematical process or in the assumptions the equation is based on, but the result may still be assumed to be right because it has been derived from a precise formula that is expected to yield good results. Without a reasonable frame of reference to work from it is seldom clear if a result is acceptably precise or is many degrees of magnitude (tens or hundreds of times) too big or too small. The Fermi estimation gives a quick, simple way to obtain this frame of reference for what might reasonably be expected to be the answer.


As long as the initial assumptions in the estimate are reasonable quantities, the result obtained will give an answer within the same scale as the correct result, and if not gives a base for understanding why this is the case. For example, suppose a person was asked to determine the number of piano tuners in Chicago.  
As long as the initial assumptions in the estimate are reasonable quantities, the result obtained will give an answer within the same scale as the correct result, and if not gives a base for understanding why this is the case. For example, suppose a person was asked to determine the number of piano tuners in Chicago.  
If their initial estimate told them there should be a hundred or so, but the precise answer tells them there are many thousands, then they know they need to find out why there is this divergence from the expected result. First looking for errors, then for factors the estimation did not take account of – does Chicago have a number of music schools or other places with a disproportionately high ratio of pianos to people? Whether close or very far from the observed results, the context the estimation provides gives useful information both about the process of calculation and the assumptions that have been used to look at problems.
If their initial estimate told them there should be a hundred or so, but the precise answer tells them there are many thousands, then they know they need to find out why there is this divergence from the expected result. First looking for errors, then for factors the estimation did not take account of – does Chicago have a number of music schools or other places with a disproportionately high ratio of pianos to people? Whether close or very far from the observed results, the context the estimation provides gives useful information both about the process of calculation and the assumptions that have been used to look at problems.


Fermi estimates are also useful in approaching problems where the optimal choice of calculation method depends on the expected size of the answer. For instance, a Fermi estimate might indicate whether the internal stresses of a structure are low enough that it can be accurately described by [[Physics:Linear elasticity|linear elasticity]]; or if the estimate already bears significant relationship in scale relative to some other value, for example, if a structure will be over-engineered to withstand loads several times greater than the estimate.{{citation needed|date=December 2018}}
Fermi estimates are also useful in approaching problems where the optimal choice of calculation method depends on the expected size of the answer. For instance, a Fermi estimate might indicate whether the internal stresses of a structure are low enough that it can be accurately described by [[Physics:Linear elasticity|linear elasticity]]; or if the estimate already bears significant relationship in scale relative to some other value, for example, if a structure will be over-engineered to withstand loads several times greater than the estimate.<ref name="UMDFERMI">{{Cite web |title=University of Maryland collection of Fermi problems |url=https://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/fermi/fermi.htm |access-date=30 July 2025 |publisher=University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group}}</ref>


Although Fermi calculations are often not accurate, as there may be many problems with their assumptions, this sort of analysis does inform one what to look for to get a better answer. For the above example, one might try to find a better estimate of the number of pianos tuned by a piano tuner in a typical day, or look up an accurate number for the population of Chicago. It also gives a rough estimate that may be good enough for some purposes: if a person wants to start a store in Chicago that sells piano tuning equipment, and calculates that they need 10,000 potential customers to stay in business, they can reasonably assume that the above estimate is far enough below 10,000 that they should consider a different business plan (and, with a little more work, they could compute a rough upper bound on the number of piano tuners by considering the most extreme ''reasonable'' values that could appear in each of their assumptions).
Although Fermi calculations are often not accurate, as there may be many problems with their assumptions, this sort of analysis does inform one what to look for to get a better answer. For the above example, one might try to find a better estimate of the number of pianos tuned by a piano tuner in a typical day, or look up an accurate number for the population of Chicago. It also gives a rough estimate that may be good enough for some purposes: if a person wants to start a store in Chicago that sells piano tuning equipment, and calculates that they need 10,000 potential customers to stay in business, they can reasonably assume that the above estimate is far enough below 10,000 that they should consider a different business plan (and, with a little more work, they could compute a rough upper bound on the number of piano tuners by considering the most extreme ''reasonable'' values that could appear in each of their assumptions).
== Explanation ==
Fermi estimates generally work because the estimations of the individual terms are often close to correct, and overestimates and underestimates help cancel each other out. That is, if there is no consistent bias, a Fermi calculation that involves the multiplication of several estimated factors (such as the number of piano tuners in Chicago) will probably be more accurate than might be first supposed.
In detail, multiplying estimates corresponds to adding their logarithms; thus one obtains a sort of [[Wiener process]] or [[Random walk|random walk]] on the [[Logarithmic scale|logarithmic scale]], which diffuses as <math>\sqrt{n}</math> (in number of terms ''n''). In discrete terms, the number of overestimates minus underestimates will have a [[Binomial distribution|binomial distribution]]. In continuous terms, if one makes a Fermi estimate of ''n'' steps, with [[Standard deviation|standard deviation]] ''σ'' units on the log scale from the actual value, then the overall estimate will have standard deviation <math>\sigma\sqrt{n}</math>, since the standard deviation of a sum scales as <math>\sqrt{n}</math> in the number of summands.
For instance, if one makes a 9-step Fermi estimate, at each step overestimating or underestimating the correct number by a factor of 2 (or with a standard deviation 2), then after 9 steps the standard error will have grown by a logarithmic factor of <math>\sqrt{9} = 3</math>, so 2<sup>3</sup> = 8. Thus one will expect to be within {{frac|8}} to 8 times the correct value – within an [[Order of magnitude|order of magnitude]], and much less than the worst case of erring by a factor of 2<sup>9</sup> = 512 (about 2.71 orders of magnitude). If one has a shorter chain or estimates more accurately, the overall estimate will be correspondingly better.


== See also ==
== See also ==
* [[Astronomy:Copernican principle|Copernican principle]]
* [[Earth:Dead reckoning|Dead reckoning]]
* [[Doomsday argument]]
* [[Guesstimate]]
* [[Guesstimate]]
* [[Earth:Dead reckoning|Dead reckoning]]
* Handwaving
* Handwaving
* [[Heuristic]]
* [[Heuristic]]
* [[Order of approximation]]
* [[Order of approximation]]
* [[Physics:Spherical cow|Spherical cow]]
* [[Stein's example]]
* [[Stein's example]]
* [[Physics:Spherical cow|Spherical cow]]


==References==
==References==
Line 46: Line 48:


The following books contain many examples of Fermi problems with solutions:
The following books contain many examples of Fermi problems with solutions:
* John Harte, ''Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving'' University Science Books1988. {{ISBN|0-935702-58-X}}.
{{refbegin}}
* John Harte, ''Consider a Cylindrical Cow: More Adventures in Environmental Problem Solving'' University Science Books2001. {{ISBN|1-891389-17-3}}.
*{{cite book |first=John |last=Harte |title=Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving |publisher=University Science Books |date=1988 |isbn=0-935702-58-X |oclc=1289913481 |url={{GBurl|w59Rc08_7NwC|pg=PR9}}}}
* Clifford Swartz, ''Back-of-the-Envelope Physics'' Johns Hopkins University Press2003. {{ISBN|0-8018-7263-4}}. {{ISBN|978-0801872631}}.
*{{cite book |author-mask=1 |first=John |last=Harte |title=Consider a Cylindrical Cow: More Adventures in Environmental Problem Solving |publisher=University Science Books |date=2001 |isbn=1-891389-17-3 |oclc=45066391 |url={{GBurl|gEqAATMOpr8C|pg=PR7}}}}
* Lawrence Weinstein & John A. Adam, ''Guesstimation: Solving the World's Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin'' Princeton University Press2008. {{ISBN|0-691-12949-5}}. {{ISBN|978-1-4008-2444-1}}. A textbook on Fermi problems.
*{{cite book |first=Clifford |last=Swartz |title=Back-of-the-Envelope Physics |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |date=2003 |isbn=0-8018-7263-4 |oclc=50476732 |url={{GBurl|uC2j8cuqjV0C|pg=PR5}}}}
* Aaron Santos, ''How Many Licks?: Or, How to Estimate Damn Near Anything''. Running Press. 2009. {{ISBN|0-7624-3560-7}}. {{ISBN|978-0-7624-3560-9}}.
*{{cite book |first1=Lawrence |last1=Weinstein |first2=John A. |last2=Adam |title=Guesstimation: Solving the World's Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin |publisher=Princeton University Press |date=2008 |isbn=978-0-691-12949-5 |oclc=440796201 |jstor=j.ctt7sgcs |url={{GBurl|nttR5Ibb7j4C|pg=PR7}}}}  A textbook on Fermi problems.
* Sanjoy Mahajan, ''[https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5339/Street-Fighting-MathematicsThe-Art-of-Educated Street-Fighting Mathematics: The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving]'' MIT Press. 2010.  {{ISBN|026251429X}}. {{ISBN|978-0262514293}}.
*{{cite book |first=Aaron |last=Santos |title=How Many Licks?: Or, How to Estimate Damn Near Anything |publisher=Running Press |date=2009 |isbn=978-0-7624-3560-9 |oclc=431550563 |url=}}
* Göran Grimvall, ''Quantify! A Crash Course in Smart Thinking'' Johns Hopkins University Press. 2010.  {{ISBN|0-8018-9717-3}}. {{ISBN|978-0-8018-9717-7}}.
*{{cite book |first=Sanjoy |last=Mahajan |title=Street-Fighting Mathematics: The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving |publisher=MIT Press |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-262-51429-3 |oclc=608692427 |url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5339/Street-Fighting-MathematicsThe-Art-of-Educated}}
* Lawrence Weinstein, ''Guesstimation 2.0: Solving Today's Problems on the Back of a Napkin'' Princeton University Press. 2012.  {{ISBN|978-0-691-15080-2}}.
*{{cite book |first=Sanjoy |last=Mahajan |title=The Art of Insight in Science and Engineering |publisher=MIT Press |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-262-52654-8 |oclc=1311967100 |url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5345/The-Art-of-Insight-in-Science-and}}
* Sanjoy Mahajan, ''[https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5345/The-Art-of-Insight-in-Science-and The Art of Insight in Science and Engineering]'' MIT Press. 2014. {{ISBN|9780262526548}}.
*{{cite book |first=Göran |last=Grimvall |title=Quantify! A Crash Course in Smart Thinking |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-8018-9717-7 |oclc=558666861 |url={{GBurl|5PqTZbgl-7QC|pg=PR5}}}}
* Dmitry Budker, Alexander O. Sushkov, ''Physics on your feet. Berkeley Graduate Exam Questions''  Oxford University Press. 2015. {{ISBN|978-0199681655}}.
*{{cite book |first=Lawrence |last=Weinstein |title=Guesstimation 2.0: Solving Today's Problems on the Back of a Napkin |publisher=Princeton University Press |date=2012 |isbn=978-0-691-15080-2 |oclc=811400575 |jstor=j.cttq94ww |url={{GBurl|5zmlVcd17N8C|pg=PR7}}}}
* Rob Eastaway, ''Maths on the Back of an Envelope: Clever ways to (roughly) calculate anything''  HarperCollins. 2019. {{ISBN|978-0008324582}}.
*{{cite book |first1=Dmitry |last1=Budker |first2=Alexander O. |last2=Sushkov |title=Physics on your feet. Berkeley Graduate Exam Questions |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2015 |isbn=978-0-19-968165-5 |oclc=908416902 |url={{GBurl|fh1cBgAAQBAJ|pg=PR11}}}}
*{{cite book |first=Rob |last=Eastaway |title=Maths on the Back of an Envelope: Clever ways to (roughly) calculate anything |publisher=HarperCollins |date=2019 |isbn=978-0-00-832458-2 |oclc=1112385307 |url={{GBurl|WH-ODwAAQBAJ|pg=PT4}}}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==

Latest revision as of 10:01, 24 May 2026

Short description: Estimation problem in physics or engineering education


A Fermi problem (or Fermi question, Fermi quiz), also known as an order-of-magnitude problem, is an estimation problem in physics or engineering education, designed to teach dimensional analysis or approximation of extreme scientific calculations. Fermi problems are usually back-of-the-envelope calculations. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their variance or lower and upper bounds. In some cases, order-of-magnitude estimates can also be derived using dimensional analysis. A Fermi estimate (or order-of-magnitude estimate, order estimation) is an estimate of an extreme scientific calculation.

Historical background

The estimation technique is named after physicist Enrico Fermi as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. An example is Enrico Fermi's estimate of the strength of the atomic bomb that detonated at the Trinity test, based on the distance traveled by pieces of paper he dropped from his hand during the blast. Fermi's estimate of 10 kilotons of TNT was well within an order of magnitude of the now-accepted value of 21 kilotons.[1][2][3]

Justification

Fermi estimates generally work because the estimations of the individual terms are often close to correct, and overestimates and underestimates help cancel each other out. That is, if there is no consistent bias, a Fermi calculation that involves the multiplication of several estimated factors (such as the number of piano tuners in Chicago) will probably be more accurate than might be first supposed.

In detail, multiplying estimates corresponds to adding their logarithms; thus one obtains a sort of Wiener process or random walk on the logarithmic scale, which diffuses as n (in number of terms n). In discrete terms, the number of overestimates minus underestimates will have a binomial distribution. In continuous terms, if one makes a Fermi estimate of n steps, with standard deviation σ units on the log scale from the actual value, then the overall estimate will have standard deviation σn, since the standard deviation of a sum scales as n in the number of summands.

For instance, if one makes a 9-step Fermi estimate, at each step overestimating or underestimating the correct number by a factor of 2 (or with a standard deviation 2), then after 9 steps the standard error will have grown by a logarithmic factor of 9=3, so 23 = 8. Thus one will expect to be within ​18 to 8 times the correct value – within an order of magnitude, and much less than the worst case of erring by a factor of 29 = 512 (about 2.71 orders of magnitude). If one has a shorter chain or estimates more accurately, the overall estimate will be correspondingly better.

Examples

Fermi questions are often extreme in nature, and cannot usually be solved using common mathematical or scientific information.

Example questions given by the official Fermi Competition:[clarification needed]

"If the mass of one teaspoon of water could be converted entirely into energy in the form of heat, what volume of water, initially at room temperature, could it bring to a boil? (litres)."
"How much does the Thames River heat up in going over the Fanshawe Dam? (Celsius degrees)."
"What is the mass of all the automobiles scrapped in North America this month? (kilograms)."[4][5]

Possibly the most famous order-of-magnitude problem is the Fermi paradox, which considers the odds of a significant number of intelligent civilizations existing in the galaxy, and ponders the apparent contradiction of human civilization never having encountered any. A well-known attempt to ponder this paradox through the lens of a Fermi estimate is the Drake equation, which seeks to estimate the number of such civilizations present in the galaxy.[6]

Advantages and scope

Scientists often look for Fermi estimates[7] of the answer to a problem before turning to more sophisticated methods to calculate a precise answer. This provides a useful check on the results. While the estimate is almost certainly incorrect, it is also a simple calculation that allows for easy error checking, and to find faulty assumptions if the figure produced is far beyond what we might reasonably expect. By contrast, precise calculations can be extremely complex but with the expectation that the answer they produce is correct. The far larger number of factors and operations involved can obscure a very significant error, either in mathematical process or in the assumptions the equation is based on, but the result may still be assumed to be right because it has been derived from a precise formula that is expected to yield good results. Without a reasonable frame of reference to work from it is seldom clear if a result is acceptably precise or is many degrees of magnitude (tens or hundreds of times) too big or too small. The Fermi estimation gives a quick, simple way to obtain this frame of reference for what might reasonably be expected to be the answer.

As long as the initial assumptions in the estimate are reasonable quantities, the result obtained will give an answer within the same scale as the correct result, and if not gives a base for understanding why this is the case. For example, suppose a person was asked to determine the number of piano tuners in Chicago. If their initial estimate told them there should be a hundred or so, but the precise answer tells them there are many thousands, then they know they need to find out why there is this divergence from the expected result. First looking for errors, then for factors the estimation did not take account of – does Chicago have a number of music schools or other places with a disproportionately high ratio of pianos to people? Whether close or very far from the observed results, the context the estimation provides gives useful information both about the process of calculation and the assumptions that have been used to look at problems.

Fermi estimates are also useful in approaching problems where the optimal choice of calculation method depends on the expected size of the answer. For instance, a Fermi estimate might indicate whether the internal stresses of a structure are low enough that it can be accurately described by linear elasticity; or if the estimate already bears significant relationship in scale relative to some other value, for example, if a structure will be over-engineered to withstand loads several times greater than the estimate.[8]

Although Fermi calculations are often not accurate, as there may be many problems with their assumptions, this sort of analysis does inform one what to look for to get a better answer. For the above example, one might try to find a better estimate of the number of pianos tuned by a piano tuner in a typical day, or look up an accurate number for the population of Chicago. It also gives a rough estimate that may be good enough for some purposes: if a person wants to start a store in Chicago that sells piano tuning equipment, and calculates that they need 10,000 potential customers to stay in business, they can reasonably assume that the above estimate is far enough below 10,000 that they should consider a different business plan (and, with a little more work, they could compute a rough upper bound on the number of piano tuners by considering the most extreme reasonable values that could appear in each of their assumptions).

See also

References

  1. "A Backward Glance: Eyewitnesses to Trinity". Nuclear Weapons Journal (Los Alamos National Laboratory) (2): 45. 2005. https://www.lanl.gov/orgs/padwp/pdfs/11nwj2-05.pdf. Retrieved 27 October 2022. 
  2. Von Baeyer, Hans Christian (September 1988). "How Fermi Would Have Fixed It". The Sciences 28 (5): 2–4. doi:10.1002/j.2326-1951.1988.tb03037.x. 
  3. Von Baeyer, Hans Christian (2001). "The Fermi Solution". The Fermi Solution: Essays on Science. Dover. pp. 3–12. ISBN 978-0-486-41707-3. OCLC 775985788. https://books.google.com/books?id=VhJr9Qx8ohsC&pg=PA3. 
  4. Weinstein, L.B. (2012). "Fermi Questions". Old Dominion University.. https://www.lions.odu.edu/~lweinste/wag.html. 
  5. Curtis, Richard K. (2001). "Fermi Questions". Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Western Ontario. https://tvsef.ca/soevents/events/puzzles/fermi_questions.html. 
  6. Ćirković, Milan M. (2018). "3.9 The Drake equation, for good or bad". The Great Silence: Science and Philosophy of Fermi's Paradox. Oxford University Press. p. 95–. ISBN 978-0-19-964630-2. OCLC 1032811202. https://books.google.com/books?id=_npVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95. 
  7. "Fermi questions". https://www.dam.brown.edu/math-coop/presentations/Fermi.pdf. 
  8. "University of Maryland collection of Fermi problems". University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group. https://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/fermi/fermi.htm. 

Further reading

The following books contain many examples of Fermi problems with solutions:

There are or have been a number of university-level courses devoted to estimation and the solution of Fermi problems. The materials for these courses are a good source for additional Fermi problem examples and material about solution strategies: