Rounding of Final Value with Sig Figs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Browntown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Final Value
AI Thread Summary
In calculating the final value of the index of refraction, the uncertainty should be rounded appropriately, but the final value must reflect the precision of the measurements. The discussion emphasizes that the overall uncertainty should be computed using a weighted average, dominated by the measurement with the smallest error, rather than a simple average or RMS method. It highlights the importance of considering systematic errors, which do not improve when combining measurements. The participants stress the need for clarity on the original data to ensure accurate calculations. Proper rounding and error analysis are crucial for presenting meaningful scientific results.
Browntown
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Rounding of Final Value with Sig Figs
Relevant Equations
None
In my lab report, I average the values of the index of refraction of a prism and I calculated the average uncertainty from the uncertainties in all those measurements. My questions is my final value is 1.585 +/- 0.006

I'm assuming my uncertainty should be rounded to 0.01 but does that mean my value should be rounded to 1.59 or 1.60?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The purpose of rounding is to not display meaningless digits. By the same token you want to be sure not to throw away anything meaningful.
To my mind, unless you know your numbers are imprecise for some other reason, your final values should be reported as you initially state them.
 
Browntown said:
and I calculated the average uncertainty from the uncertainties in all those measurements.
This is not how the overall uncertainty should be computed.

What exactly are your measurements and errors?
 
My apologies for not catching that.
You typically need to do an RMS average which will commonly be dominated by the largest error. Important to understand how this works.
 
Thank you for the advice, I looked up RMS and got a better final value.
 
hutchphd said:
My apologies for not catching that.
You typically need to do an RMS average which will commonly be dominated by the largest error. Important to understand how this works.
This is not the proper procedure. In the proper procedure the average of the measurements must be a weighted average that will be dominated by the measurement with the smallest error. That error will also typically dominate the overall error (which will also be smaller than all individual errors since you are adding information). This is why I asked OP to post his original underlying data.

One also has to be very mindful of any systematic errors as those do not get better when combining measurements.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top