I Correctly Scaling the Standard Deviation for Scaled Measurements

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on scaling the standard deviation for flux density measurements in a light curve project. The original scaling method involved multiplying the flux density by a factor related to frequency, but the resulting error bars were unexpectedly large. Participants debated whether the standard deviation should be scaled by the same factor as the measurements, confirming that it should indeed scale similarly. There was also concern about the impact of errors in frequency on the overall error bars. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying scaling factors to both measurements and their uncertainties.
camilleon
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I have a standard for each individual value in a set of data. After scaling this data, the standard deviations must be scaled as well.
We're working on a project that plots flux density of a light curve with respect to time. To do this, we had to scale data from different wavelengths so we had just the one variable for the flux. Essentially we took each value for flux density and multiplied it by three over the frequency raised -1/2 power..
Sscaled=S⋅(3nu)−12Sscaled=S⋅(3nu)−12Where S is our flux denisty, nu is the frequency, and S_scaled in the scaled flux density (what we're going to plot)

QUESTION: We know the standard deviation for each measurement of flux density and we also want to scale it accordingly. This is where I'm having trouble. I'm not familiar with how to properly scale standard deviation in this case. We're essentially multiplying each value by a different number. Would I simply multiply each value for standard deviation by the same factor? That would be,
Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12Where S_err is the standard deviation for each measurement and Err_scaled is the scaled standard deviation

We tried this and it gave us pretty large error bars. Since I'm not sure this is the right formula, I wanted to sure this is the correct way to scale the standard deviation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello camilleon, :welcome: !

Can you typeset your equations ? It is impossible for me to deciper something like
Sscaled=S⋅(3nu)−12Sscaled=S⋅(3nu)−12

If I try to make sense I get something that may or may not be correct:
I type $$ S_{scaled}=\frac {S}{\sqrt{3\nu}}\quad ? $$ and get
$$ S_{scaled}=\frac {S}{\sqrt{3\nu}}\quad ? $$

If the error in ##\nu## is negligible, then the error in ##A## times ##S## is the error in ##A## times the error in ##S##

which may or may not be the expression you intended to post that came out as Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12
(guidelines point 7)
 
camilleon said:
We tried this and it gave us pretty large error bars.
Were the error bars different before ?
 
Standard deviations scale by the same factor as the individual measurements.
 
  • Like
Likes camilleon
BvU said:
Hello camilleon, :welcome: !

Can you typeset your equations ? It is impossible for me to deciper something like

If I try to make sense I get something that may or may not be correct:
I type $$ S_{scaled}=\frac {S}{\sqrt{3\nu}}\quad ? $$ and get
$$ S_{scaled}=\frac {S}{\sqrt{3\nu}}\quad ? $$

If the error in ##\nu## is negligible, then the error in ##A## times ##S## is the error in ##A## times the error in ##S##

which may or may not be the expression you intended to post that came out as Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12Errscaled=Serr⋅(3nu)−12

Sorry, I copied and pasted this text from another forum and forgot to check the formatting for the equations here. The factor should have been $$\left(\frac 3 {nu}\right)$$ but very close.
I think the increase in the error bars is probably due to error in nu. Thank you!

(guidelines point 7)
 
So the
camilleon said:
raised -1/2 power..
Has disappeared now ? I figured it was to be deciphered from the "S⋅(3nu)−12 " :rolleyes:

Are you also going to make plots of things derived from ##S## with frequency on the x-axis ?

Re:
copied and pasted this text from another forum
Link ?
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top