Confidence intervals for two separate variables?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around comparing the results of two experimental methods, with the first yielding a result of 0.001 ± 0.004 and the second -0.002 ± 0.003. The participant questions whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two methods, noting that both results fall within each other's standard deviations. They express a desire to quantify their confidence in the second method yielding a lower result, despite the means being close. The conversation suggests using statistical tests, such as the independent two-sample T-test, to analyze the data and demonstrate the differences mathematically. The importance of statistical understanding in experimental physics is also highlighted.
mikeph
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
18
Hi

I have a certain experiment that I repeat 40 times and get the result:

0.001 +/- 0.004.

Now I've repeated the experiment using a different method (so it is essentially a new experiment) and I get a new value:

-0.002 +/- 0.003

Now, is it true to say there is no statistically significant difference between these two different methods? Even though they lie within each other's standard deviation, I think the fact that I've repeated the experiment 40 times should mean something- it makes me confident that method 2 gives a lower result. I don't know how to translate this confidence into statistical analysis though.

The fact that the means are different is clearly not sufficient to convince anyone... how can I convince someone that method 2 gives a lower result? Let's say I even repeat the experiment another 40 times and get EXACTLY the same means and standard deviations. But I know with more certainty the means are different because I've done more experiments. How do I show this using maths though (without actually having to do the experiments?).

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perfect. Stats really should be compulsory for undergrad physicists!
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K