How Should Uncertainties and Significant Figures Be Reported in Measurements?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the reporting of uncertainties and significant figures in measurements, particularly in the context of length measurements and calculations involving multiplication and addition of measured values.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand how to properly report measurements with uncertainties, questioning the validity of including certain digits based on their certainty.
  • Participants discuss the implications of significant figures in calculations, particularly when multiplying and adding measured values, and how to express results accordingly.
  • Questions arise regarding the treatment of uncertainties when performing mathematical operations, such as division to find a radius from a diameter.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided various insights regarding the proper reporting of uncertainties and significant figures. Some have clarified that uncertainties should match the precision of the measurement, while others have explored how to handle calculations involving significant figures. There is ongoing exploration of how to accurately express derived measurements and their uncertainties.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of significant figures and uncertainties, with some expressing confusion over how to apply these concepts in specific scenarios. The discussion includes examples with varying levels of precision and the implications of rounding in calculations.

fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Hello, first of all sorry for my bad english it is not my mother tongue

I am new to the uncertainty and significant figures concept and I have measured some things, I want to write the results using them.

The length of my table is 273,3 cm. The instrumental uncertainty is ± 0,3 cm, and I have approximated the non-instrumental uncertainty to ± 1cm. Therefore, the total uncertainty is equal to ± 1,3 cm.

Question: do I write 273,3 ± 1,3 cm? it looks to me that writing it this way does not make sense because the 3 in the units position in 273,3 is not 100% sure, so the 3 in the decimal part doesn't have any value. am I right? what would you write down?

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By writing " 273,3 ±1,3 cm" You are saying that the proper measurement is somewhere between 272,0 and 274,6 cm. There is nothing wrong with that. Divide the uncertainty by the measurement, and you find that this is a relative uncertainty of 0,5%. This is a valid statement.

If you dropped that ",3" then you would be saying that the proper measurement is between 272,3 and 274,6. Now it looks like your uncertainty has been "improved" to 0,4%. The original analysis was better.

In general (but not always the case) your uncertainty should have the same precision as the measurement. That is, the last digit of the uncertainty should be in the same decimal place as the last digit of the measurement.
 
Just to add to Chi Meson's excellent answer: it's customary to quote an uncertainty to either 1 or 2 significant figures, but never 3 or more. The ± 1,3 cm figure is consistent with this.
 
ok, thank you for the clear answers. I have 2 other questions:

273.3 * 76.34 = 20880.12
"The LEAST number of significant figures in any number of the problem determines the number of significant figures in the answer."
My answer must have 3 significant figures. How do I write 20880.12 using 3 significant figures? I really don't see how..


2nd question
perimeter of a table = (273.3±1.3)+(273.3±1.3)+(76.4±0.3)+(76.4±0.3) = 699.4 ± 3.2
this is correct isn't it? no problems with the significant figures right?

thank you
 
Last edited:
fishingspree2 said:
ok, thank you for the clear answers. I have 2 other questions:

273.3 * 76.34 = 20880.12
"The LEAST number of significant figures in any number of the problem determines the number of significant figures in the answer."
My answer must have 3 significant figures. How do I write 20880.12 using 3 significant figures? I really don't see how..
For starters, 273.3 and 76.34 both have 4 significant figures. Do you see why?
So 4 is the least number of sig. fig's, and that should be the number of sig. fig's in the answer.

Next, take the answer 20880.12. Start with the most significant figure 1st, then the 2nd-most sig. fig., etc., until you have 4 figures:

1st: 2
2nd: 0
etc.

Stop after the 4th figure, but add any zeroes as necessary until you've reaches the "1's" digit.

2nd question
perimeter of a table = (273.3±1.3)+(273.3±1.3)+(76.4±0.3)+(76.4±0.3) = 699.4 ± 3.2
this is correct isn't it? no problems with the significant figures right?

Yes, looks good.
 
ok, thank you very much

I have another question:shy: sorry hopefully it's the last one

let's say the diameter of a circle is 12.7 ± 0.3 cm
I want to find the radius
I divide 12.7 by 2 = 6.35 => 6.4 (because 3 is odd)
I don't touch the uncertainty (because 2 is not a measured number, no uncertainty)
so the final answer is 6.4 ± 0.3 cm
correct?
 
No, the error for the radius will be different than the diameter error.

Let's try a different example, one with no round-off issues, to see what's going on.

Let's say a circle's diameter is 10.0 ± 0.4 cm.
That means the diameter is between 9.6 and 10.4 cm.
Taking 1/2 of those numbers to get the radius, we find the radius could be between
9.6/2 and 10.4/2 cm, or 4.8 and 5.2 cm

This range, 4.8 to 5.2, is expressed as 5.0 ± ?
Notice the relation between the ? radius error and the 0.4 cm diameter error.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K