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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top