Homework help: Uncertainty with negative power

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the absolute uncertainty of R^−2, where R is measured as 3.400 ± 0.007 m. The correct method involves determining the relative uncertainty as 2 * (0.007/3.4) = 4.11E-3, and then applying this to R^−2 = 0.0865 m^-2 to find the absolute uncertainty. The final result should be rounded to 4E-4 m^-2, emphasizing the importance of significant figures and rounding in calculations. Participants highlighted the value of maintaining extra digits during calculations to avoid rounding errors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of absolute and relative uncertainty
  • Familiarity with significant figures and rounding rules
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation in physics
  • Proficiency in using calculators for scientific calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of uncertainty propagation in measurements
  • Learn about significant figures and their application in scientific calculations
  • Explore algebraic methods for maintaining precision in calculations
  • Review examples of uncertainty calculations in physics problems
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics or engineering, educators teaching measurement techniques, and anyone involved in scientific calculations requiring precision and accuracy.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: SammyS and Jerry Z

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
902
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
962