A3.

EXPERIMENTAL UNCERTAINTY: SUMMARY

We have seen that no physical quantity is ever known with perfect exactness. There is always
some uncertainty associated with experimentally measured value. We often refer to this fact by
saying that measurements always have an “error” with them. The standard deviation of the
mean is a measure of the so-called random error of the measurement, as describe further below.
Usually in an experiment we do not know the “true” value; otherwise there will be no reason
for performing the experiment. We may know approximately what it should be, however, either
from earlier experiments or from theoretical predictions. There is one class of errors that we can
deal with immediately: Errors that originate from mistakes in measurement or computation.
Fortunately, those errors are usually apparent either as obviously it correct (anomalous) data
points or as results that are not reasonable close to expected values. They are classified as
illegimate errors and generally can be corrected by carefully repeating the operations.

It is important to distinguish between the terms accuracy and precision. The accuracy of an
experiment is a measure of how close the results of the experiment are to the “true” value.
Therefore, it is a measure of the “correctness” of the results. The precision of the experiment is
a measure of how well the results have been determined, without reference to this agreement to
the “true” value. The precision is also a measure of the reproducibility of the results. It is obvious
that we must consider accurate and precision simultaneously for an experiment. It would be a
waste of time and energy to determine a results with high precision if we knew that the results
would be high inaccurate. Conversely, a result cannot be considered to be extremely accurate if
the precision is low. In general, when we quote the uncertainty in an experimental result, we
are referring to the precision with which the results have been determined.

The accuracy of an experiment is generally dependant on how well we can control or

compensate for systematic errors. Those are errors that will make our results different from
the “true” values with reproducible discrepancies Errors of this type are not easy to detect. They
may result from faulty calibration of equipment or from poor experimental technique on the part
of the observer. They must be estimated from an analysis of the experimental conditions and
techniques. A measure part of the planning of an experiment should be devoted to understanding
and reducing sources of systematic errors.

The precision of an experiment is dependent on how well we can overcome random errors.
Those are fluctuations in observation that yield results that differ from experiment to experiment
and that require repeated experimentation to yield precise result. (Note that a given accuracy
implies an equivalent precision and, therefore, also depends to some extent on random errors.)
The problem of reducing random errors is essentially one of improving the experimental method
and refining the techniques, as well as simply repeating the experiment. If the random arrears
result from instrumental uncertainties, they can be reduced by using more reliable and more
precise measuring instruments. If the random errors result from statistical fluctuations
associated with counting finite numbers of events, they may be reduced by counting more
events.

In summary, whenever you have performed an experiment you need to think carefully about the
apparatus and the procedures you have used and to consider how they may have affected your
results. Note however, that you cannot simply say, “For example: The ammeter could have been
faulty”. You need to have some reason for making the statement otherwise it is of no use.
Generally, in your practicals you will calculate random error and quote it together with your
measured quantity and give a brief description of the systematic errors affecting this quantity.