Question about Inverse Square law and sound intensity

In summary, the conversation discusses how to plot and prove the inverse square law for sound intensity and distance to the sound source. The suggested approach is to plot a function of the data to yield a straight line, and to show consistency within experimental error. Another method is to use a log-log graph. The conversation also notes that experimental data may not perfectly fit the theoretical curve.
  • #1
Hannes
3
0

Homework Statement


For school, I have to make a task about sound intensity and the distance to the sound source. I have to prove that the relation between these two is known as the inverse square law _1/ I_2 = ( _2/_1 )².
Does someone know how I can plot the inverse square law or prove that it counts for this graph?
Thanks
upload_2016-10-21_21-30-38.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hannes said:
Does someone know how I can plot the inverse square law
A good approach is plot a function of the data which ought to yield a straight line. So if you expect y=1/x2 then plot x2 on one axis and 1/y on the other; or 1/x2 on one and y on the other, etc.
Does that help?
 
  • #3
Yes that should normally be the plot of the inverse square law but in this case I have 0.0000002/x^1,975 and not 1/x^1.975 and I don't know how to solve that.
 
  • #4
Hannes said:
Yes that should normally be the plot of the inverse square law but in this case I have 0.0000002/x^1,975 and not 1/x^1.975 and I don't know how to solve that.
Experimental data will never perfectly fit the theoretical curve. Indeed, it is not possible to prove physical theories, it is only possible to disprove them or to fail to disprove them (which is called confirming them).
So here you just need to show that the data are consistent an inverse square law, within the bounds of experimental error.

Another way to plot the data as a straight line is on a log-log graph.
 
  • #5
But this fits far from perfectly and we can't find our mistake.
 
  • #6
Hannes said:
But this fits far from perfectly and we can't find our mistake.
Oh, I thought you were worried about the 1.975, instead of 2.
The constant multiplier can be anything. 0.0000002 is as good as any.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top