Error of Product: Calculating Speed of Sound Formula

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Opus_723
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the speed of sound using a formula for error propagation in measurements. Participants are examining two different formulas for calculating the error in the speed of sound based on measurements of wavelength and frequency, exploring their origins and applicability in a physics lab context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of a formula for error propagation used in a physics lab, noting discrepancies between it and their own derived formula.
  • Another participant suggests that the first formula is appropriate for random errors, while the second is more suited for systematic errors.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the first formula assumes uncorrelated errors, whereas the second assumes maximal correlation, which may lead to overestimation of uncertainty.
  • One participant acknowledges a lack of statistical knowledge and expresses confusion regarding the interpretation of errors in the context of the formulas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the two formulas for error propagation, with no consensus reached on which is more accurate or applicable in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the interpretation of errors as either maximum possible errors or as average errors, highlighting the dependence on statistical assumptions and the nature of the errors involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and educators involved in experimental physics, particularly those interested in error analysis and statistical interpretation of measurement uncertainties.

Opus_723
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
I'm teaching one of the physics labs for non-science majors at my school this year, and I ran across a formula in the first lab that's confusing me.

They are using an oscilloscope to measure the wavelength of sound at a given frequency in order to determine the speed of sound. The lab manual then asks them to find the error in their calculation, using the mean of several measurements as the true \lambda, and this formula:

\Deltav = v\sqrt{(\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\lambda})^{2}+(\frac{Δf}{f})^{2}}

I'm not sure where this formula comes from, but I get a very different formula for the error in a product when I multiply out (\lambda+Δ\lambda)(f+Δf) and divide by \lambdaf to get the relative error (dropping high-order terms, of course):

\Deltav = v(\frac{Δ\lambda}{\lambda}+\frac{Δf}{f})

And trying a few examples on my calculator, this latter formula seems to give better results. Has anyone seen that first formula above? I'm trying to figure out if I'm just being dense and it should give me better results, or if someone made a mistake printing this lab. The only thing I can think of is that someone squared both sides of the equation I got and then dropped the middle term for some reason, even though it's the same order as the others.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your own formula would make sense if you wanted to interpret Δλ, Δf and Δv as maximum possible errors. But a more useful interpretation would be to think of them as most likely (or average) errors, or as, say, 90% confidence intervals for errors. It's quite unlikely both errors will be simultaneously large (assuming they're statistically independent), but more likely one will be larger and the other smaller.

See the Wikipedia article Propagation of uncertainty for the maths.
 
The first formula is for random errors, the other for systematical ones.
 
Thank you. That makes sense. I haven't studied any statistics yet, so I just tried the simplest thing I could think of.
 
szynkasz said:
The first formula is for random errors, the other for systematical ones.
Systematic uncertainties can be uncorrelated, too. And statistic errors can be correlated (not very likely in this example, however).

The first formula is for uncorrelated errors. The second assumes maximal correlation - you can use it as conservative approach if you are unsure about the correlation, but you will usually overestimate the uncertainty with it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K