Error Calculations For Physics
Contents |
Life in the Universe Labs Foundational Labs Observational Labs Advanced Labs Origins of Life in the Universe Labs Introduction to Color Imaging Properties of Exoplanets General Astronomy Telescopes Part calculating percent error in physics 1: Using the Stars Tutorials Aligning and Animating Images Coordinates in MaxIm
Physics Uncertainty Calculations
Fits Header Graphing in Maxim Image Calibration in Maxim Importing Images into MaxIm Importing Images into Rspec Measuring Magnitude calculating error chemistry in Maxim Observing with Rigel Photometry in Maxim Producing Color Images Stacking Images Using SpectraSuite Software Using Tablet Applications Using the Rise and Set Calculator on Rigel Wavelength Calibration in Rspec
Error Equation Physics
Glossary Kepler's Third Law Significant Figures Percent Error Formula Small-Angle Formula Stellar Parallax Finder Chart Iowa Robotic Telescope Sidebar[Skip] Glossary Index Kepler's Third LawSignificant FiguresPercent Error FormulaSmall-Angle FormulaStellar ParallaxFinder Chart Percent Error Formula When you calculate results that are aiming for known values, the percent error formula is useful tool for determining the precision of your calculations. The formula is given by: The error formula physics experimental value is your calculated value, and the theoretical value is your known value. A percentage very close to zero means you are very close to your targeted value, which is good. It is always necessary to understand the cause of the error, such as whether it is due to the imprecision of your equipment, your own estimations, or a mistake in your experiment.Example: The 17th century Danish astronomer, Ole Rømer, observed that the periods of the satellites of Jupiter would appear to fluctuate depending on the distance of Jupiter from Earth. The further away Jupiter was, the longer the satellites would take to appear from behind the planet. In 1676, he determined that this phenomenon was due to the fact that the speed of light was finite, and subsequently estimated its velocity to be approximately 220,000 km/s. The current accepted value of the speed of light is almost 299,800 km/s. What was the percent error of Rømer's estimate?Solution:experimental value = 220,000 km/s = 2.2 x 108 m/stheoretical value = 299,800 km/s 2.998 x 108 m/s So Rømer was quite a bit off by our standards today, but considering h
in measuring the time required for a weight to fall to the floor, a random error will occur when an experimenter attempts to push a button that starts a timer simultaneously with the release of the weight. If this random error dominates the
Standard Deviation Physics
fall time measurement, then if we repeat the measurement many times (N times) and plot
Error Calculation Formula
equal intervals (bins) of the fall time ti on the horizontal axis against the number of times a given fall time ti occurs error in physics definition on the vertical axis, our results (see histogram below) should approach an ideal bell-shaped curve (called a Gaussian distribution) as the number of measurements N becomes very large. The best estimate of the true fall time t http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/ITU/glossary/percent-error-formula/ is the mean value (or average value) of the distribution: átñ = (SNi=1 ti)/N . If the experimenter squares each deviation from the mean, averages the squares, and takes the square root of that average, the result is a quantity called the "root-mean-square" or the "standard deviation" s of the distribution. It measures the random error or the statistical uncertainty of the individual measurement ti: s = Ö[SNi=1(ti - átñ)2 / (N-1) ].
About two-thirds http://felix.physics.sunysb.edu/~allen/252/PHY_error_analysis.html of all the measurements have a deviation less than one s from the mean and 95% of all measurements are within two s of the mean. In accord with our intuition that the uncertainty of the mean should be smaller than the uncertainty of any single measurement, measurement theory shows that in the case of random errors the standard deviation of the mean smean is given by: sm = s / ÖN , where N again is the number of measurements used to determine the mean. Then the result of the N measurements of the fall time would be quoted as t = átñ ± sm. Whenever you make a measurement that is repeated N times, you are supposed to calculate the mean value and its standard deviation as just described. For a large number of measurements this procedure is somewhat tedious. If you have a calculator with statistical functions it may do the job for you. There is also a simplified prescription for estimating the random error which you can use. Assume you have measured the fall time about ten times. In this case it is reasonable to assume that the largest measurement tmax is approximately +2s from the mean, and the smallest tmin is -2s from the mean. Hence: s » ¼ (tmax - tmin) is an reasonable estimate of the uncsources. The process of evaluating this uncertainty associated with a measurement result is often called uncertainty analysis or error analysis. The complete statement of a measured value should include an http://user.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty/UNCguide.html estimate of the level of confidence associated with the value. Properly reporting an experimental result along with its uncertainty allows other people to make judgements about the quality of the experiment, and it facilitates meaningful comparisons with other similar values or a theoretical prediction. Without an uncertainty estimate, it is impossible to answer the basic scientific question: "Does my result agree with a theoretical prediction or results from error in other experiments?" This question is fundamental for deciding if a scientific hypothesis is confirmed or refuted. When we make a measurement, we generally assume that some exact or true value exists based on how we define what is being measured. While we may never know this true value exactly, we attempt to find this ideal quantity to the best of our ability with the time and resources available. As error in physics we make measurements by different methods, or even when making multiple measurements using the same method, we may obtain slightly different results. So how do we report our findings for our best estimate of this elusive true value? The most common way to show the range of values that we believe includes the true value is: measurement = best estimate ± uncertainty Let’s take an example. Suppose you want to find the mass of a gold ring that you would like to sell to a friend. You do not want to jeopardize your friendship, so you want to get an accurate mass of the ring in order to charge a fair market price. By simply examining the ring in your hand, you estimate the mass to be between 10 and 20 grams, but this is not a very precise estimate. After some searching, you find an electronic balance which gives a mass reading of 17.43 grams. While this measurement is much more precise than the original estimate, how do you know that it is accurate, and how confident are you that this measurement represents the true value of the ring’s mass? Since the digital display of the balance is limited to 2 decimal places