Error Propagation in Measurements

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the topic of error propagation in measurements, specifically in the context of calculating the area of a rectangle defined by two dimensions. Participants explore different methods for estimating uncertainties associated with measurements and their effects on calculated results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method for calculating the area of a rectangle while considering symmetric errors in the dimensions, questioning the impact of higher-order terms on the overall error.
  • Another participant corrects their earlier thought process regarding the number of pairings in error terms, indicating a potential misunderstanding in their calculations.
  • A participant introduces the concept of relative variation as a standard term for error, suggesting that multiple error sources can be combined by adding their relative variations.
  • Three methods for evaluating error propagation are suggested:
    • Calculating the area using maximum and minimum measurements to find a symmetric range around the best estimate.
    • Adding relative errors directly if they are small, which aligns with the first method when rounded appropriately.
    • Using quadrature to combine relative errors for a potentially more accurate estimate, assuming uncertainties are not covariant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views on how to approach error propagation, with no consensus reached on a single method or interpretation of the error terms.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding the proper terminology and the mathematical steps involved in their reasoning, indicating potential limitations in their understanding of error propagation concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying measurement techniques, error analysis, or anyone involved in experimental physics or engineering where precision in calculations is critical.

erobz
Gold Member
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,846
I was imagining trying to construct a rectangle of area ##A = xy##

If we give a symmetric error to each dimension ##\epsilon_x, \epsilon_y##

$$ A + \Delta A = ( x \pm \epsilon_x )( y \pm \epsilon_y )$$

Expanding the RHS and dividing through by ##A##

$$ \frac{\Delta A}{ A} = \pm \frac{\epsilon_x}{x} \pm \frac{\epsilon_y}{y} (\pm)(\pm) \frac{\epsilon_x \epsilon_y}{xy}$$

The first two terms are symmetrical error, but without neglecting the third higher order term should it have a negative bias since ## \frac{2}{3}## of sign ( ##\pm##) parings result in a negative third term, and ##\frac{1}{3}## pairings result in a positive third term?

My terminology is probably improper.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind! I think I did that wrong... There are only 4 pairings. for some reason I had ##C(4,2)## in my head.
 
The standard term for the error is the relative variation (the square of the standard deviation divided by the measurement). If you have several possible error sources, add the relative variations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: erobz
Three options to consider:
1) Simply evaluate your function using measurements that result in the highest and lowest possible values, in this case calculate area given by the maximum probable measurements and the minimum probable measurements. The difference in these values will be roughly symmetric about the best estimate provided the uncertainties are relatively small. Since the high and low will be roughly symmetric from the best estimate you can get away with just finding either the highest or lowest for

2) What @Svein said. If the relative errors are small you can add them together to find the relative error of the product and then easily find the absolute error. It will match with method 1 when rounded sensibly using standard significant digit 'rules.'

3) Add the relative errors in quadrature (square them, add, then square root). This is likely a more accurate estimate of the uncertainty in the product provided that the uncertainties are not covariant. This method comes from the calculus of probabilities. See Taylor's An Introduction to Error Analysis for an excellent introductory text on this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: erobz

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K