Calculating Uncertainty in Scientific Measurements

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating uncertainty in scientific measurements, specifically evaluating the uncertainties in two calculations: z = 5(ab/e) and p = 3e - b. The key takeaway is that in relative uncertainty calculations, constants like 5 do not contribute to the uncertainty, while in absolute uncertainty calculations, constants such as 3 are multiplied by the uncertainty of the variable. The correct approach for part 1 leads to Δz = +/- 5 (to 1 significant figure), while part 2 results in Δp = +/- 0.7 (to 1 significant figure).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relative and absolute uncertainty
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic operations
  • Knowledge of significant figures in scientific measurements
  • Experience with uncertainty propagation techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of uncertainty propagation in scientific calculations
  • Learn about relative versus absolute uncertainty in measurement
  • Explore the use of constants in uncertainty calculations
  • Review examples of uncertainty calculations in physics and engineering contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics or engineering, researchers conducting experiments, and anyone involved in scientific measurement and data analysis.

qorizon
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
a=12.26 +/- 0.08
b=0.25 +/- 0.05
e=1.2 +/- 0.2

Evaluate the uncertainty of following calculations

Part 1. z= 5(ab/e)

Part 2. p= 3e - b

The Attempt at a Solution


I attempted part 1 like this
Δz/z = 5 (Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)
...
Calculated Δz to be 20 but the answer is
Δz/z = (Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)
...
Δz = +/- 5 (to 1 sf)

Then I saw part 2's answer like this:
Δp = 3Δe + Δb
...
Δp= +/- 0.7 (to 1 sf)

Now I'm confused. Why is it that in part 1 the constant 5 in not taken into account when calculating uncertainty, but in part 2 the constant 3 is included? Am I doing it wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In part 2 you are computing an absolute uncertainty, so the absolute uncertainty on 3e is 3 times the absolute uncertainty on e.
In part 1 you are computing a relative uncertainty, so a constant doesn't matter.

Imagine (for part 1) that 5 is a measured value d, with d=5 +/- 0.
Then for the relative uncertainty of z we get:
Δz/z =(Δd/d + Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)=(0+Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e) =(Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)
A value with 0 uncertainty has no impact on the relative uncertainty, that's why you ignore multiplication by a constant when computing a relative uncertainty.

(http://web.uvic.ca/~jalexndr/192UncertRules.pdf)
 
Last edited:
Samy_A said:
In part 2 you are computing an absolute uncertainty, so the absolute uncertainty on 3e is 3 times the absolute uncertainty on e.
In part 1 you are computing a relative uncertainty, so a constant doesn't matter.

Imagine (for part 1) that 5 is a measured value d, with d=5 +/- 0.
Then for the relative uncertainty of z we get:
Δz/z =(Δd/d + Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)=(0+Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e) =(Δa/a + Δb/b + Δe/e)
A value with 0 uncertainty has no impact on the relative uncertainty, that's why you ignore multiplication by a constant when computing a relative uncertainty.

(http://web.uvic.ca/~jalexndr/192UncertRules.pdf)

Thank you for the really helpful explanation!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
31K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K