Is it possible to do calculations for systematic errors?

AI Thread Summary
Percentage apparatus errors are classified as accidental errors rather than systematic errors, indicating that the true value lies within a certain error bandwidth with an associated probability. Systematic errors cannot be accurately calculated because their nature is unknown and can stem from various sources, such as equipment malfunction or experimental setup issues. While accidental errors can be estimated and are typically Gaussian in distribution, systematic errors remain elusive and cannot be quantified in the same way. The discussion emphasizes the need for qualitative analysis of the apparatus to identify potential systematic errors. Ultimately, understanding the distinction between these error types is crucial for accurate measurements in experiments.
SHM
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Are percentage apparatus errors also systematic errors?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SHM said:
Are percentage apparatus errors also systematic errors?
No, they are accidental errors (or insecurities). The percentage (or absolute) insecurity written on an apparatus means the following: The true value lies within the error bandwidth around the measured value with a certain probability (and not for sure); but I don't know what the standard value for this probability is, maybe 80 or 90 percent.

Is it possible to do calculations for systematic errors?
Since you don't know them you cannot include them into error calculations. Of course you also don't know your particular accidental errors, but you do know more or less how big they are and, which is very important, that they are Gauss-displaced.

On the other hand, systematic errors could be anything, could be a piece of fly excrement on your balance or a broken apparatus, could be a bad experiment setup. You just don't know.
 
So is it more of a qualitative analysis of the apparatus
 
Back
Top