Significant Figures: Is My Way More Accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M_LeComte
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Significant figures
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the accuracy of significant figures in physics calculations, specifically comparing two methods of solving the equation for a harmonic oscillator. The author of the physics book uses a significant figure approach that leads to a result of -0.0907, while the forum participant calculates -0.0924. The discrepancy arises from the treatment of intermediate calculations and significant figures, particularly in the multiplication of time (t) and the square root of the ratio of spring constant (k) to mass (m). The consensus is that maintaining "sig plus one" figures during intermediate calculations minimizes rounding errors, although the final answer is constrained by the least precise measurement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of significant figures in scientific calculations
  • Familiarity with harmonic motion equations
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations
  • Knowledge of physics constants such as mass (m) and spring constant (k)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of significant figures in scientific calculations
  • Learn about harmonic oscillators and their equations of motion
  • Explore methods for minimizing rounding errors in calculations
  • Study the implications of precision in experimental physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, mathematicians focusing on precision in calculations, and anyone involved in scientific research requiring accurate data analysis.

M_LeComte
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
The author of my physics book seems to be a little significant-figure-happy:
m=150.0, k=225, A=.15, t=3.00, δ=π
He does this : -A√k/m)sin(t√k/m)+δ)=-.15*1.22sin(3.00*1.22+π)=-.0907
Whereas I do: -A√k/m)sin(t√k/m)+δ)=-A√k/m)sin(3.67+π)=-A√k/m)sin(6.81)=-.0924

Isn't my way more accurate? These discrepancies are driving me nuts as they occur in almost every problem (and there is no method to his madness), so I just wanted to know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
M_LeComte said:
The author of my physics book seems to be a little significant-figure-happy:
m=150.0, k=225, A=.15, t=3.00, ?=?
He does this : -A?k/m)sin(t?k/m)+?)=-.15*1.22sin(3.00*1.22+?)=-.0907
Whereas I do: -A?k/m)sin(t?k/m)+?)=-A?k/m)sin(3.67+?)=-A?k/m)sin(6.81)=-.0924

Isn't my way more accurate? These discrepancies are driving me nuts as they occur in almost every problem (and there is no method to his madness), so I just wanted to know.

How did (3.00*1.22) become 3.67? THis alone accounts for the discrepency.
 
Here is a hint:

3 * 1.22 is 3.66 not 3.67

Does that help?
 
t=3.00, k=225, m=150.0
√k/m)=1.22
and
1.22t=3.66
but
t√k/m)=3.67

And therein lies the problem. He's making a sig fig calculation before multiplying √k/m) by t. There's also a discrepancy in the ways we approach what's inside the sine function, thus exacerbating the already-present difference in our answers. To me, mine seems the more accurate way to do it, but I just wanted to make sure.
 
OK, I actually agree with you. When solving intermediate solutions it's a good idea to keep "sig plus one" figures to minimize rounding error. It doesn't matter too much here, since the final answer is limited to two sig figs due to the A = 0.15 factor. The discrepency is only .091 vs. .092 .
 
When solving the intermediate, you give correct number of sig fig, but then continuing the path to the final answer without having rounded at all.
 
I think that it is always best so solve equations algerbraically first, then plug and chug the numbers :smile:
 
'A' should actually be .150, so the difference between our answers is a bit bigger.

Thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K