Solve Uncertainty in "An Introduction to Error Analysis" by John R Taylor

  • Thread starter Thread starter NicolaiTheDane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uncertainty
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on an example from "An Introduction to Error Analysis" by John R. Taylor, specifically regarding the calculation of uncertainty in the formula for gravitational acceleration, g = 2h/t². The participant questions the application of the rules outlined in sections 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10, particularly the absence of a factor of 2 in the uncertainty calculation. The consensus is that the factor of 2 cancels out due to the definitions provided in section 3.9, which states that the uncertainty in q, denoted as δq, is related to the uncertainty in x, δx, without requiring additional factors. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the correlation of errors in uncertainty calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic error analysis principles
  • Familiarity with the concepts of relative and absolute uncertainty
  • Knowledge of mathematical differentiation and its application in physics
  • Proficiency in interpreting equations and symbols in scientific literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the rules of error propagation as outlined in "An Introduction to Error Analysis" by John R. Taylor
  • Study the implications of correlated versus uncorrelated errors in experimental data
  • Learn how to apply the quadrature method for combining uncertainties
  • Explore additional examples of uncertainty calculations in physics problems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students studying physics, particularly those preparing for courses involving error analysis, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to uncertainty in measurements.

NicolaiTheDane
Messages
100
Reaction score
10
This isn't a homework question, but instead a question about an example in a book I'm reading, in prep for next semester. As such using the posting template is a bit of a miss. Hope that can be forgiven.

1. Homework Statement


I'm reading "An Introduction to Error Analysis" by John R Taylor during my spring vacation as brush up for my next semester. I encountered an example that doesn't make sense to me though. It goes through teaching 3 rules as follows:

upload_2018-8-17_14-8-6.png
(3.8)
upload_2018-8-17_14-8-16.png
(3.9)
upload_2018-8-17_14-8-35.png
(3.10)

Now the example it gives is as follows (leaving out units for ease):

##t = 1.6\pm0.1##

##h = 46.2\pm0.3##

Now it calculates ##g = \frac{2*h}{t^2}## and more importantly its uncertainty as follows:

$$\frac{\delta g}{g}=\frac{\delta h}{h}+2*\frac{\delta t}{t} = 0.007+2*0.063 = 0.133$$

as justifed by 3.8 and 3.10. However here is my problem; What about 3.9?

The Attempt at a Solution



As far as I can see, the example completely forgets about the factor 2. With 3.9 in mind, ##x = \frac{h}{t^2}## shouldn't it be:

$$\frac{\delta g}{g}=2*\left(\frac{\delta h}{h}+2*\frac{\delta t}{t}\right)$$

What am I missing?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-8-17_14-8-6.png
    upload_2018-8-17_14-8-6.png
    12.6 KB · Views: 586
  • upload_2018-8-17_14-8-16.png
    upload_2018-8-17_14-8-16.png
    45.7 KB · Views: 413
  • upload_2018-8-17_14-8-35.png
    upload_2018-8-17_14-8-35.png
    7.3 KB · Views: 500
Physics news on Phys.org
Honestly, you should not be using 3.8 because it essentially makes the assumption that all the errors are correlated (which may be conservative, but usually not the case). If the errors are uncorrelated, it would be more appropriate to add the relative errors in quadrature.

However, given 3.8-10: No, there should not be a factor of 2. What is given in 3.9 is ##\delta q##, not ##\delta q/q##. The factor of 2 from ##\delta q## cancels the factor of 2 from ##q##.

Edit: To expand on that, 3.9 states ##\delta q = |B| \delta x## and by definition ##|q| = |B| |x|## and therefore
$$
\frac{\delta q}{|q|} = \frac{|B|\delta x}{|B| |x|} = \frac{\delta x}{|x|}.
$$

Also, do not write ##\delta * x##, it is ##\delta x## which is the error in ##x##. The ##\delta## and the ##x## are part of the same symbol representing the error in ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NicolaiTheDane
Orodruin said:
Honestly, you should not be using 3.8 because it essentially makes the assumption that all the errors are correlated (which may be conservative, but usually not the case). If the errors are uncorrelated, it would be more appropriate to add the relative errors in quadrature.

However, given 3.8-10: No, there should not be a factor of 2. What is given in 3.9 is ##\delta q##, not ##\delta q/q##. The factor of 2 from ##\delta q## cancels the factor of 2 from ##q##.

Edit: To expand on that, 3.9 states ##\delta q = |B| \delta x## and by definition ##|q| = |B| |x|## and therefore
$$
\frac{\delta q}{|q|} = \frac{|B|\delta x}{|B| |x|} = \frac{\delta x}{|x|}.
$$

Also, do not write ##\delta * x##, it is ##\delta x## which is the error in ##x##. The ##\delta## and the ##x## are part of the same symbol representing the error in ##x##.

Of course! Embarrassing oversight on my part. Thanks a bunch!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K