Rounding of Final Value with Sig Figs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Browntown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Final Value
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proper rounding of a final value in a lab report concerning the index of refraction of a prism, specifically focusing on how to handle uncertainties in measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of rounding uncertainties and final values, questioning the original poster's method of calculating average uncertainty and discussing the appropriate procedures for reporting final values.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on the calculation methods, suggesting that the original poster consider RMS averaging and the importance of systematic errors. There is an ongoing exploration of different approaches to uncertainty and rounding.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need for the original underlying data to better assess the calculations and assumptions made by the original poster. The discussion highlights the potential for misunderstanding in the computation of overall uncertainty.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
11K