Homework help: Uncertainty with negative power

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the absolute uncertainty in R^−2, given a distance measurement of 3.400 ± 0.007m. The initial attempt yielded an absolute uncertainty of 3E-4 m^-2, which was later corrected to 4E-4 m^-2 due to rounding issues. Participants emphasized the importance of significant figures and suggested maintaining extra digits during calculations to avoid errors. It was noted that performing calculations in one step rather than in parts can help achieve more accurate results. Ultimately, the correct approach to uncertainty calculations was clarified, highlighting the significance of careful rounding.
Jerry Z
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Question:
A distance R is measured to be 3.400 ± 0.007m. What is the absolute uncertainty in R^−2?

Attempted solution:
Relative uncertainty: 2* (0.007/3.4) = 4.11E-3;
R^-2 = 3.4^-2 = 0.0865 m^-2;
Absolute uncertainty = R^-2 * relative = 0.0865 * 4.11E-3 = 3E-4 m^-2;

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: instead of 3E-4, the correct rounding should be 4E-4.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Jerry Z said:
Question:
A distance R is measured to be 3.400 ± 0.007m. What is the absolute uncertainty in R^−2?

Attempted solution:
Relative uncertainty: 2* (0.007/3.4) = 4.11E-3;
R^-2 = 3.4^-2 = 0.0865 m^-2;
Absolute uncertainty = R^-2 * relative = 0.0865 * 4.11E-3 = 3E-4 m^-2;

Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hello @Jerry Z . Welcome to PF !

What's your question?
 
SammyS said:
Hello @Jerry Z . Welcome to PF !

What's your question?
i cannot get the right answer for the question stated
 
Jerry Z said:
i cannot get the right answer for the question stated
Perhaps there is a problem with significant figures and/or rounding off at intermediate steps.
 
SammyS said:
Perhaps there is a problem with significant figures and/or rounding off in intermediate steps.
So I'm solving it correctly?
 
Jerry Z said:
So I'm solving it correctly?
What you did looks reasonable.

The details of getting uncertainties and applying rules for significant figures vary somewhat from book to book, instructor to instructor, discipline to discipline .

I suggest keeping two extra digits (over what's required for sig. figs.) .

OR

Do the entire calculation at one time with no intermediate steps. (Be especially careful of Order of Operations.)Do final rounding at the end to whatever decimal place is required in your situation.
 
  • Like
Likes Jerry Z
SammyS said:
What you did looks reasonable.

The details of getting uncertainties and applying rules for significant figures vary somewhat from book to book, instructor to instructor, discipline to discipline .

I suggest keeping two extra digits (over what's required for sig. figs.) .

OR

Do the entire calculation at one time with no intermediate steps. (Be especially careful of Order of Operations.)Do final rounding at the end to whatever decimal place is required in your situation.

Thank you so much! It is indeed the rounding in the end that made the difference.
 
Jerry Z said:
Thank you so much! It is indeed the rounding in the end that made the difference.
Great !

So, what was the acceptable answer?
 
SammyS said:
Great !

So, what was the acceptable answer?

Answer is edited in the original text. Thanks again!
 
  • #10
This is an example of the merits of keeping everything algebraic as long as possible, only plugging in values at the end. In the present case, when at last plugging in numbers, you would have had 2*0.007/3.43. Putting that into my calculator gives 0.000356.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS and Jerry Z

Similar threads

Back
Top