Estimating Error in Acceleration: Can We Do It?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating the error in the acceleration of a particle based on its speed measurements, denoted as v(x; ζ), and the true speed V(x). It emphasizes the need for an error estimate, ε(x; ζ), to ensure meaningful results, where the error must be bounded by a known positive function E(x; ζ) that ideally approaches zero as ζ decreases. The conversation explores whether similar error estimates can be derived for the derivative of v(x; ζ) using the available information, particularly under the assumption of negligible discretization error. It highlights the challenge of detecting high-frequency oscillations in velocity that can lead to large accelerations, despite small maximal velocities. Ultimately, while instantaneous acceleration limits cannot be established without additional data, average acceleration limits can be calculated based on the velocity measurements and their associated errors.
bruno67
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Denote by V(x) the speed of a particle at position x. Let's call v(x;\zeta) a measurement of it, which depends on some parameter \zeta, and denote the error by
\epsilon(x;\zeta)=v(x;\zeta)-V(x).
In order for the measurement to produce meaningful results, we must have some kind of error estimate such that, for any x
|\epsilon(x;\zeta)|\le E(x;\zeta)
where E is a known positive function, which ideally tends to zero as \zeta tends to zero (we are not considering quantum mechanical effects). My question is: can we obtain a similar estimate for the error in the derivative of v(x;\zeta) (e.g., as a function of E(x;\zeta), V(x) or V'(x)) from the information given above, or do we not have enough information?

You can assume that the derivative of v(x;\zeta) is calculated by finite difference, and that the discretization error involved is negligible.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Without additional data, you cannot give an upper limit for the instantaneous acceleration. Imagine you have some nice movement, and you add a high-frequency oscillation with fixed, small maximal velocity to it. As long as this maximal velocity is small compared to your error, you cannot detect it, but the acceleration is proportional to the maximal velocity multiplied by the frequency. Therefore, if the frequency is high enough, you can get arbitrary large accelerations.

You can give limits for the average acceleration (e.g. between two measurements), integrated over some time or maybe space interval.

In that case, assuming uncorrelated errors and no error for the time difference, your maximal deviations are given by (lowest velocity1 -> highest velocity 2) and (highest velocity1 -> lowest velocity 2). In your case, just add E(x,chi) for both pairs (x,chi) which contribute to the measurement, and divide it by the time difference. If you have to estimate the time difference by the velocity measurements, the formula might get a bit more complicated, but it is still possible to do it.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top