Loss of Significance in Experiment Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do I fight loss of significance and/or improve convergence for this recursive algorithm?
Time evolution of a Gaussian wave packet, why convert to k-space?
Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?
Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?
How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?
One-one communication
How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?
Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?
Trademark violation for app?
Is there public access to the Meteor Crater in Arizona?
If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?
How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?
How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?
What do you call the main part of a joke?
Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?
Flight departed from the gate 5 min before scheduled departure time. Refund options
Can the Flaming Sphere spell be rammed into multiple Tiny creatures that are in the same 5-foot square?
How long can equipment go unused before powering up runs the risk of damage?
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?
The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?
In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?
Are sorcerers unable to use the Careful Spell metamagic option on themselves?
What does this say in Elvish?
Significance of Cersei's obsession with elephants?
Loss of Significance in Experiment
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do I fight loss of significance and/or improve convergence for this recursive algorithm?
$begingroup$
I am quite familiar with the problem associated with loss of significance in numerical analysis. This problem seems to be an even bigger problem in the science lab, where subtracting one physical measurement from another produces potentially tremendous error because the uncertanties in the measurement don't subtract, but add.
Question: Is there a special name for this type of error associated with subtraction when applied to the physical measurement? Does anyone know any resources that specifically target this problem?
catastrophic-cancellation
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am quite familiar with the problem associated with loss of significance in numerical analysis. This problem seems to be an even bigger problem in the science lab, where subtracting one physical measurement from another produces potentially tremendous error because the uncertanties in the measurement don't subtract, but add.
Question: Is there a special name for this type of error associated with subtraction when applied to the physical measurement? Does anyone know any resources that specifically target this problem?
catastrophic-cancellation
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am quite familiar with the problem associated with loss of significance in numerical analysis. This problem seems to be an even bigger problem in the science lab, where subtracting one physical measurement from another produces potentially tremendous error because the uncertanties in the measurement don't subtract, but add.
Question: Is there a special name for this type of error associated with subtraction when applied to the physical measurement? Does anyone know any resources that specifically target this problem?
catastrophic-cancellation
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
$endgroup$
I am quite familiar with the problem associated with loss of significance in numerical analysis. This problem seems to be an even bigger problem in the science lab, where subtracting one physical measurement from another produces potentially tremendous error because the uncertanties in the measurement don't subtract, but add.
Question: Is there a special name for this type of error associated with subtraction when applied to the physical measurement? Does anyone know any resources that specifically target this problem?
catastrophic-cancellation
catastrophic-cancellation
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
asked Apr 2 at 2:52
Roger DodgerRoger Dodger
62
62
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A lot of it comes down to experiment design, to measure the correct quantity where the subtraction has already happened. In high school physics I measured the index of refraction of air. I was given an interferometer with a vacuum chamber in one of the legs. The chamber was only a couple inches long, but I could set the interferometer working and count the fringes that passed by as I evacuated the chamber. My measured value agreed with the published value within $10^-5!$ The clever thing was the design. What I had really measured was the difference between the index of refraction of air and the $1$ of vacuum. My measurement was about $4cdot 10^-5$ while the published value is $2.9cdot 10^-5$, so my error was over $25%$. But add $1$ to it and the fractional error gets much smaller.
You can also look at how the errors come in. Say you are measuring the shape of a spectral line. You change the wavelength you are sensitive to and measure the intensity. There is a certain error in your setting of the wavelength at each measurement. You might be able to argue that some of the errors are common to all the wavelength settings. The result would be to allow you to measure the width of the line better than you know the absolute wavelength of the center.
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171403%2floss-of-significance-in-experiment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A lot of it comes down to experiment design, to measure the correct quantity where the subtraction has already happened. In high school physics I measured the index of refraction of air. I was given an interferometer with a vacuum chamber in one of the legs. The chamber was only a couple inches long, but I could set the interferometer working and count the fringes that passed by as I evacuated the chamber. My measured value agreed with the published value within $10^-5!$ The clever thing was the design. What I had really measured was the difference between the index of refraction of air and the $1$ of vacuum. My measurement was about $4cdot 10^-5$ while the published value is $2.9cdot 10^-5$, so my error was over $25%$. But add $1$ to it and the fractional error gets much smaller.
You can also look at how the errors come in. Say you are measuring the shape of a spectral line. You change the wavelength you are sensitive to and measure the intensity. There is a certain error in your setting of the wavelength at each measurement. You might be able to argue that some of the errors are common to all the wavelength settings. The result would be to allow you to measure the width of the line better than you know the absolute wavelength of the center.
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A lot of it comes down to experiment design, to measure the correct quantity where the subtraction has already happened. In high school physics I measured the index of refraction of air. I was given an interferometer with a vacuum chamber in one of the legs. The chamber was only a couple inches long, but I could set the interferometer working and count the fringes that passed by as I evacuated the chamber. My measured value agreed with the published value within $10^-5!$ The clever thing was the design. What I had really measured was the difference between the index of refraction of air and the $1$ of vacuum. My measurement was about $4cdot 10^-5$ while the published value is $2.9cdot 10^-5$, so my error was over $25%$. But add $1$ to it and the fractional error gets much smaller.
You can also look at how the errors come in. Say you are measuring the shape of a spectral line. You change the wavelength you are sensitive to and measure the intensity. There is a certain error in your setting of the wavelength at each measurement. You might be able to argue that some of the errors are common to all the wavelength settings. The result would be to allow you to measure the width of the line better than you know the absolute wavelength of the center.
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A lot of it comes down to experiment design, to measure the correct quantity where the subtraction has already happened. In high school physics I measured the index of refraction of air. I was given an interferometer with a vacuum chamber in one of the legs. The chamber was only a couple inches long, but I could set the interferometer working and count the fringes that passed by as I evacuated the chamber. My measured value agreed with the published value within $10^-5!$ The clever thing was the design. What I had really measured was the difference between the index of refraction of air and the $1$ of vacuum. My measurement was about $4cdot 10^-5$ while the published value is $2.9cdot 10^-5$, so my error was over $25%$. But add $1$ to it and the fractional error gets much smaller.
You can also look at how the errors come in. Say you are measuring the shape of a spectral line. You change the wavelength you are sensitive to and measure the intensity. There is a certain error in your setting of the wavelength at each measurement. You might be able to argue that some of the errors are common to all the wavelength settings. The result would be to allow you to measure the width of the line better than you know the absolute wavelength of the center.
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
A lot of it comes down to experiment design, to measure the correct quantity where the subtraction has already happened. In high school physics I measured the index of refraction of air. I was given an interferometer with a vacuum chamber in one of the legs. The chamber was only a couple inches long, but I could set the interferometer working and count the fringes that passed by as I evacuated the chamber. My measured value agreed with the published value within $10^-5!$ The clever thing was the design. What I had really measured was the difference between the index of refraction of air and the $1$ of vacuum. My measurement was about $4cdot 10^-5$ while the published value is $2.9cdot 10^-5$, so my error was over $25%$. But add $1$ to it and the fractional error gets much smaller.
You can also look at how the errors come in. Say you are measuring the shape of a spectral line. You change the wavelength you are sensitive to and measure the intensity. There is a certain error in your setting of the wavelength at each measurement. You might be able to argue that some of the errors are common to all the wavelength settings. The result would be to allow you to measure the width of the line better than you know the absolute wavelength of the center.
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Apr 2 at 3:22
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
302k24201375
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171403%2floss-of-significance-in-experiment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Welcome to Math.SE! You question does not concern mathematics, but rather terminology associated with experimental procedures. As such, it would likely be better suited for a different stackexchange site, such as Physics.
$endgroup$
– Brian
Apr 2 at 2:56
$begingroup$
A phrase I tend to use is subtractive cancellation (much like your tag phrase, catastrophic cancellation). I'm not aware of any specific terminology that applies to arithmetic with errors of measurement. One might suspect that while physical processes have to be specially assessed for uncertainties, once a "best measurement" is recorded, the loss of significance in computation is expressed by the same terminology.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Apr 2 at 3:04
$begingroup$
Agreed that this was posted in the wrong stack. I thought I was posting it in physics. Need to be more careful.
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 2 at 16:54
$begingroup$
Thanks, hardmath
$endgroup$
– Roger Dodger
Apr 3 at 16:39