Walter Lewin videos -- why ± 0.5 cm uncertainty why not ± 0.1?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Walter Lewin's video lecture on 1D Kinematics, specifically addressing the uncertainty in length measurements using a ruler. Participants highlight that while a typical meter ruler has an uncertainty of ± 0.1 cm, Lewin's use of ± 0.5 cm is justified due to factors such as ruler calibration, bending, and the difficulty in precisely measuring wire positions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of proper measurement techniques, including not aligning the "0" of the ruler at one end and the necessity of considering the ruler's 3D shape and calibration when estimating uncertainty.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic measurement techniques in physics
  • Familiarity with significant figures and rounding in scientific calculations
  • Knowledge of error estimation methodologies
  • Awareness of the impact of physical properties on measurement accuracy
NEXT STEPS
  • Research proper methodologies for measuring length in scientific experiments
  • Explore techniques for estimating measurement uncertainty in physical experiments
  • Learn about the effects of calibration and physical properties on measurement accuracy
  • Study significant digits and their role in scientific reporting
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, educators teaching measurement techniques, and anyone interested in improving their understanding of scientific measurement accuracy and methodologies.

benny91xp
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
here is the link to walter lewin video lecture please jump to 13:13

8.01x - Lect 2 - 1D Kinematics - Speed, Velocity, Acceleration

i thought that all meter ruler/ meter stick use ± 0.1 cm as uncertainty .how did he get ± 0.5 cm?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The ruler calibration could be off a bit, the precise position of the wires is not easy to measure, the ruler bends a bit. +- 0.5 cm is a conservative estimate.
It doesn't really matter for the experiment he wants to perform.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: benny91xp
He demonstrated the measurement improperly. The length has two measures, one at each end. He aligned the "0" of the ruler at one end of the length and assumed 0 error for the measurement at that end, then read the other end with an estimate of error...

The proper way to measure like that is to lay the measuring ruler randomly (not aligning the "0" on the ruler at one end of the length to be measured), take a reading from the ruler at each end of the length, and subtract the greater from the smaller.

In popular culture people set the "0" end of the ruler or tape measure and simply read the other end as their result. Length measures in science must not be done like that. There is a proper methodology for using a ruler, as well as methodologies for estimating error, significant digits, and rounding... and how to take all this into account when doing the math.
 
He has a 2% uncertainty in the time measurement. Measuring the length more precise than 0.5% is unnecessary.

The dominant uncertainty of the length measurement is not the reading of the ruler either, it is the 3D shape of the ruler and possibly its calibration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K