How to address experimental error in conclusion

Click For Summary
In the discussion, the focus is on how to articulate the experimental verification of a theory that predicts a variable's direction of change with 90% accuracy and an average error of 0.5 Newtons. The conversation emphasizes the importance of not claiming the theory is "proven" due to the 10% inaccuracy and the margin of error. Instead, it suggests addressing potential sources of error, limitations of the experiment, and the need for a robust statistical analysis to assess the validity of the predictions. Recommendations include conducting confidence interval studies, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis to better understand the significance of the results and their implications for the theory's verification or falsification.
24forChromium
Messages
155
Reaction score
7
I am writing an essay which includes the experimental "verification" of a theory. As it turns out, the theory was able to predict a certain variable F's direction of change (i.e. increase or decrease across two data points) "correctly" for 90% of the time, and predicts the value of F at each point with an average error of 0.5Newtons.

How should I say the theory is "proven" and to what extent in the experiment's summary?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
24forChromium said:
I am writing an essay which includes the experimental "verification" of a theory. As it turns out, the theory was able to predict a certain variable F's direction of change (i.e. increase or decrease across two data points) "correctly" for 90% of the time, and predicts the value of F at each point with an average error of 0.5Newtons.

How should I say the theory is "proven" and to what extent in the experiment's summary?

Proven? What about the 10% of the time or the ##\pm## .5N? That's what you want to talk about, not that they theory was "proven." What were sources of error, ways to design a better experiment? Limits on results?

How did you analyze your data?
 
Student100 said:
Proven? What about the 10% of the time or the ##\pm## .5N? That's what you want to talk about, not that they theory was "proven." What were sources of error, ways to design a better experiment? Limits on results?

How did you analyze your data?
The method I used is kind of inappropriate, I monitored two independent variables and used the theory to get the dependent, the dependent is also measured experimentally. After that, the predicted values of the dependent F is compared to the empirically observed F.
 
24forChromium said:
The method I used is kind of inappropriate, I monitored two independent variables and used the theory to get the dependent, the dependent is also measured experimentally. After that, the predicted values of the dependent F is compared to the empirically observed F.

Then you might want to do a statistical analysis on your data set.
 
micromass said:
Then you might want to do a statistical analysis on your data set.
I am afraid that this reply is not specific enough. What kind of results should the analysis yield and how are they related to the verification/falsification of the theory?
 
24forChromium said:
I am afraid that this reply is not specific enough. What kind of results should the analysis yield and how are they related to the verification/falsification of the theory?

I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. But generally, if you have a theory that you want to verify experimentally, then using a statistical analysis is crucial. Just saying "it predicts it correctly 90% of the time" is not saying much. You need to study the errors and whether the errors are significant enough to reject the theory. I suggest you study confidence intervals and hypothesis testing. Maybe even regression analysis.
 
TL;DR: Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? Hi, I want to learn ultrafast optics and I am interested in condensed matter physics, ie using ultrafast optics in condensed matter systems. However, before I get onto ultrafast optics I need to improve my electrodynamics knowledge. Should I study Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? My level at the moment is Griffiths. Given my interest in ultrafast optics in condensed matter, I am not sure which book is better suited for me. If...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
742
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K