I Is thermal noise a statistical uncertainty?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter kelly0303
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set theory
kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! I have a system described by ##y=ax##, where a is the parameter I want to extract and y is the stuff I measure (we can assume that I can measure one instance of y without any uncertainty). x is a parameter I can control experimentally but it has an uncertainty associated to it. In a simplified form (but enough for my question), x is the position of a particle (classically) in contact with a thermal bath at temperature T. For example we can assume that the energy of the particle is ##kx^2/2##, where k is a known constant and for each measurement of y, x has a different x, where the probability of an x is given by the probability of having that given energy based on a Boltzman distribution at temperature T. I am not sure if this is a statistical uncertainty or not. I would say it is, because if I measure many y values, I can narrow down the true y value (if I assume I have Gaussian and not thermal noise, that would go down as ##1/\sqrt{N}##, where N is the number of measurements, right?), but I wanted to make sure this makes sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "Gaussian and not thermal noise"? The thermal probability distribution in your case is proportional to
$$e^{-\beta E}=e^{-\beta kx^2/2}$$
which is also Gaussian. Besides, by the "true" value, do you mean the average value?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top