Question about errors, Hubble's constant

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the weighted average of Hubble's constant values with both statistical and systematic errors, one must first consider the correlations between systematic uncertainties. The standard formula for weighted averages can be applied, but it requires careful handling of the uncertainties, particularly when they are asymmetric. If no correlation data is available, assuming small correlations allows for a simplified approach, using the average of the upper and lower uncertainties as weights. However, if the uncertainties are too asymmetric, this method may yield inaccurate results. Ultimately, a proper assessment of uncertainties is crucial for obtaining a reliable weighted average.
Matt atkinson
Messages
114
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am just looking through some old notes I have from for cosmology, and there's something cropped up that i can't seem to figure out:

Say I have two (or more) values for H_o each with errors such as:

H_{o_1}=70^{+a+b}_{-c-d}
and

H_{o_2}=69^{+e+f}_{-g-h}

How would I go about calculating the weighted averaged (a,c,e,g are statistical errors. The rest are systematic errors) and then uncerstainty on the weighted average when for instance a\neq c.

Homework Equations


All the formula i found are along the lines of:

\bar{x}=(\sum^{N}_{i=1}x_i/\sigma_i^2)/(\sum^{N}_{i=1}1/\sigma_i^2)

\sigma_{\bar{x}}=\sqrt{1/(\sum^{N}_{i=1}1/\sigma_i^2})

The Attempt at a Solution


I've attempted to workout the top uncertainty on it's own, and likewise with the bottom but that doesn't seem the right way to do it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To do it properly, you first have to know about the correlations between the systematic uncertainties. Then you can get the likelihood functions of the individual measurements, combine them, and then extract central value and uncertainties from that again.
If you just have access to the given numbers and expect that the correlation is small, the quick and dirty weighted average should give some reasonable approximation. The uncertainty of the weighted average follows from the usual uncertainty propagation.
 
Ah okay thank you, I have just been given numbers and no correlation and been told to make an assumption. So I should say that if i assume the correlation between systematic uncertainties is small.

So to work that out, let's say I have:

76.9^{+3.9+10}_{-3.4-8}
66^{+11+9}_{-10-8}
How would I go about using that in the formula I have above for the weighted average. for instance what would I use for \sigma_1 when its values for the upper and lower uncertainties differ.
 
I would probably use the average of the upwards and downwards uncertainty for the weights. If those the uncertainties are too asymmetric, this simplified approach will fail anyway.
 
Okay thankyou! ill give it a try now, i did have attempt at doing each on their own it gave a strange result so ill try taking the average.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top