#$&*
course Phy 232
5/12 12AMhello!
Self-critique (if necessary):
------------------------------------------------
Self-critique rating:
________________________________________
@& Hello, and welcome.*@
#*&!
SOME COMMON QUESTIONS:
*********************************************
QUESTION: I didn’t understand how to calculate uncertainty for a number such as 1.34. When given examples we had problems such as 1.34 ±0.5 and with that we had a formula (0.5/1.34)*100. So I do not understand how to compute uncertainty when no estimated uncertainty is given.
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE:
The +- number is the uncertainty in the measurement.
The percent uncertainty is the uncertainty, expressed as a percent of the number being observed.
So the question in this case is simply, 'what percent of 1.34 is 0.5?'.
• 0.5 / 1.34 = .037, approximately. So 0.5 is .037 of 1.34.
• .037 is the same as 3.7%.
I recommend understanding the principles of ratio, proportion and percent as opposed to using a formula. These principles are part of the standard school curriculum, though it does not appear that these concepts have been well mastered by the majority of students who have completed the curriculum. However most students who have the prerequisites for this course do fine with these ideas, after a little review. It will in the long run save you time to do so.
There are numerous Web resources available for understanding these concepts. You should check out these resources and let me know if you have questions.
*********************************************
QUESTION: I understood the main points of changing the different units, but I’m not sure when in the problem I should change the number to 10 raised to a certain power. In example 1-8 I did not understand why they changed 70 beats/min to 2 x 10^9 s.
2 * 10^9 is about the number of seconds in 70 years.
70 beats / min were not changed to 2 * 10^9 seconds; in changing the beats / minute to beats in a lifetime, there was a step where it was necessary to multiply by 2 * 10^9 seconds.
The example actually used 80 beats / min as a basis for the solution. This was converted to beats / second by the calculation
80 beats / min * 1 minute / (60 seconds), which would yield about 1.33 beats / second.
This was then multiplied by 2 * 10^9 seconds to get the number of beats in a lifetime:
2 * 10^9 seconds * 1.33 beats / second = 3 * 10^9 beats.
In the given solution 80 beats / min * 1 minute / (60 seconds) was not actually calculated; instead 80 beats / min * 1 minute / (60 seconds) was multiplied by 2 * 10^9 seconds in one step
80 beats / min * 1 minute / (60 seconds) * 2 * 10^9 seconds = 3 * 10^9 beats.
In your instructor's opinion the unit 'beats' should have been left in the result; the text expressed the result simply as 3 * 10^9, apparently ignoring the fact that the unit 'beats' was included in the quantities on the left-hand side.
Also the text identified this number as 3 trillion. In the British terminology this would be correct; in American terminology this number would be 3 billion, not 3 trillion.
COMMENT:
I thought that these problems were pretty basic and felt that I understood them well. However, when I got to questions 14 (determine your own mass in kg) and 15 (determining how many meters away the Sun is from the Earth), I did not understand how to complete these. I know my weight in pounds, but how can that be converted to mass in kilograms? I can look up how to convert miles to meters, but is this something I should already know?
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE:
Both of these questions could be answered knowing that an object with a mass of 1 kg has a weight of 2.2 lb, and that an inch is 2.54 centimeters. This assumes that you know how many feet in a mile, and that the Sun is 93 million miles away. All these things should be common knowledge, but it doesn't appear to be so.
For my own weight I would reason as follows:
I weigh 170 lb and every kg of my mass weighs 2.2 lb. I'll have fewer kg of mass than I will pounds of weight, so it's reasonable to conclude that my mass is 170 / 2.2 kg, or about 78 kg.
More formally 170 lb * (1 kg / (2.2 lb) ) = 170 / 2.2 kg = 78 kg, approx.. (technical point: this isn't really right because pounds and kilograms don't measure the same thing--pounds measure force and kg measure mass--but we'll worry about that later in the course).
Converting 93 million miles to kilometers:
93 million miles * (5280 feet / mile) * (12 inches / foot) * (2.54 cm / inch) * (1 meter / (100 cm) ) = 160 billion meters (approx.) or 160 million kilometers.
QUESTION
What proved to be most tricky in the problems portion was the scientific notation. I am somewhat familiar with this from
past math classes, but had trouble when dealing with using the powers of 10. I had trouble dealing with which way to move my decimal according to the problems that were written as 10^-3 versus 10^3. Which way do you move the decimal when dealing with negative or positive powers of 10?
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE
Using your numbers, 10^3 means 10 * 10 * 10 = 1000.
• When you multiply a number by 1000 you move the decimal accordingly. For example 3.5 * 1000 = 3500.
10^-3 means 1 / 10^3 = 1 / (10 * 10 * 10) = 1 / 1000.
• When you multiply by 10^-3 you are therefore multiplying by 1 / 1000, which is the same as dividing by 1000, or multiplying by .001.
• For example 3.5 * 10^-3 = 3.5 * .001 = .0035.
• As another example 5 700 000 * 10^-3 would be 5 700 000 * (1 / 1000) = 5 700.
• From these examples you should be able to infer how the decimal point moves.
You can also search the Web under 'laws of exponents', 'arithmetic in scientific notation', and other keywords.
There isn't a single site I can recommend, and if I did find a good one its URL might change by the time you try to locate it. In any case it's best to let you judge the available materials yourself.
When searching under 'arithmetic in scientific notation' using Google, the following appear as additional suggested search phrases:
scientific notation
exponents
scientific notation metric prefixes
significant digits
multiply with scientific notation
scientific notation decimal
scientific notation lessons
addition and subtraction with scientific notation
scientific notation metric system
'scientific notation lessons' might be a good place to look.
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
1)In the text question five asks for the percent uncertainty of a measurement given 1.57 m^2
I think that we figure this by an uncertainty of .01/1.57m^2 = .6369 or approximately one. ??????Am I correct in how I
calculate this??????? Can I asuume that if the number given was 1.579 then we would calculate it by .001/1.57 = .1 % approximately or am I incorrect?????
You're on the right track.
There are two ways to look at this.
1.57 m^2 represents a quantity which rounds off to 1.57, so presumably lies between 1.565 and 1.575.
This means that the quantity is within .005 of 1.57.
.005 / 1.57 = .003, approx., so the uncertainty is .003 of 1.57, which is the same as 0.3%, of 1.57.
Another way to look at it:
1.57 could be interpreted to mean a number between 1.56 and 1.58. The uncertainty would then be .01, which is .01 / 1.57 = .006, or 6%, of 1.57.
2)In the text question number 11 the book asks what is the percent uncertainty in the volume of a sphere whose radius is
r=2.86 plus or minus .09.
I know that the Volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi r^3, so I calculated the volume to be 4/3 pi (2.86)^3 = 97.99 and to get the
percent uncertainty I tried to divide 0.09/97.99 * 100 =.091846, but the book answer is 9% ??????I am not sure what i am doing wrong here?????????????????
Again there are two ways to approach this.
I believe the book tells you that the uncertainty in the square of a number is double the uncertainty in the number, and the uncertainty in the cube of the number is trip the uncertainty in the number.
An uncertainty of .09 in a measurement of 2.86 is .09 / 2.86 = .03, approx., or about 3%. As you state, you cube the radius to find the volume. When 2.86 is cubed, the resulting number has three times the uncertainty, or about 9%.
Another approach:
Calculate the volume for r = 2.86.
Then calculate the volume for r = 2.86 - .09 = 2.77.
You will find that the resulting volumes differ by about 9%.
You could just as well have calculated the volume for r = 2.86 + .09 = 2.95. Again you would find that the volume differs from the r = 2.86 volume by about 9%.
STUDENT QUESTION
When reading the section about the scientific notation some of the answers were written in powers of 10 and some were just
written regularly. How do I know when to turn my answer into a power of 10 or to leave my answer as is?
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE
Good question.
Convenience and readability are the main factors. It's a lot less typing or writing to use 438 000 000 000 000 000 000 than 4.38 * 10^20, and it's easier for the reader to understand what 10^20 means than to count up all the zeros.
For readability any number greater than 100 000 or less than .001 should probably be written in scientific notation.
When scientific notation is first used in a calculation or result, it should be used with all numbers in that step, and in every subsequent step of the solution.
QUESTION
In my problems (I am working from the University Physics text- exercise 1.14) they are asking for the ratio of length to
width of a rectangle based on the fact that both of the measurements have uncertainty. ?????Is there anything special you
have to do when adding or multiplying numbers with uncertainty?????? I know that there are rules with significant figures,
but I don’t understand if the same is true for uncertain measurements.
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE:
For example:
If there is a 5% uncertainty in length and no significant uncertainty in width, then area will be uncertain by 5%.
If there is a 5% uncertainty in length and a 3% uncertainty in width, then it is possible for the area result to be as much as 1.05 * 1.03 = 1.08 times the actual area, or as little as .95 * .97 = .92 times the actual area. Thus the area is uncertain by about 8%.
This generalizes. The percent uncertainty in the product or quotient of two quantities is equal to the sum of the percent uncertainties in the individual quantities (assuming the uncertainties are small compared to the quantities themselves).
(optional addition for University Physics students): The argument is a little abstract for this level, but the proof that it must be so, and the degree to which it actually is so, can be understood in terms of the product rule (fg) ' = f ' g + g ' f. However we won't go into those details at this point.
QUESTIONs RELATED TO UNIVERSITY PHYSICS (relevant only to University Physics students)
I understand everything but the part on measuring the individual i j k vectors by using cosine.
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE
It's not completely clear what you are asking, but I suspect it has to do with direction cosines.
The vector A = a_1 i + a_2 j + a_3 k makes angles with the directions of the x axis, the y axis and the z axis.
Let's consider first the x axis.
The direction of the x axis is the same as the direction of the unit vector i.
The projection of A on the x direction is just a_1. This is obvious, but it can also be found by projecting the A vector on the i vector.
This projection is just | A | cos(alpha), where alpha is the angle between A and the x direction.
Now A dot i = A = (a_1 i + a_2 j + a_3 k) dot i = A = a_1 i dot i + a_2 j dot i + a_3 k dot i = a_1 * 1 + a_2 * 0 + a_3 * 0 = a_1.
It's also the case that A dot i = | A | | i | cos(alpha). Since | i | = 1, it follows that A dot i = | A | cos(alpha), so that
• cos(alpha) = A dot i / | A | = a_1 / sqrt( a_1 ^ 2 + a_2 ^ 2 + a_3 ^ 2 ).
Making the convention that alpha is the angle made by the vector with the x direction, we say that cos(alpha) is the direction cosine of the vector with the x axis.
If beta and gamma are, respectively, the angles with the y and z axes, reasoning similar to the above tells us that
• cos(beta) = a_2 / sqrt( a_1 ^ 2 + a_2 ^ 2 + a_3 ^ 2 ) and
• cos(gamma) = a_3 / sqrt( a_1 ^ 2 + a_2 ^ 2 + a_3 ^ 2 ).
cos(alpha), cos(beta) and cos(gamma) are called the 'direction cosines of the vector A' with respect to the three coordinate axes.
Recall that alpha, beta and gamma are the angles made the the vector with the three respective coordinate axes.
If we know the direction cosines and the magnitude of the vector, we can among other things find its projection on any of the coordinate axes.
STUDENT QUESTION (University Physics)
Chapter 1 wasn’t bad of course I had to read in detail the vector section there is little confusion on what is meant by
antiparallel. Does that mean that you wouldn’t displace anything if the magnitude was equal only the direction was different?
Also when handwritten vectors are written above the say A the arrow is only in one direction (to the right) not the direction
traveled?
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE
I don't have that reference handy, but my understanding of the word 'antiparallel' is two vectors, one of which is in the direction exactly opposite the other.
If two vectors are antiparallel, then their dot product would equal negative of the product of their magnitudes:
The angle theta between antiparallel vectors v and w would be 180 degrees, so v dot w = | v | * | w | * cos(180 deg) = - | v | * | w | .
STUDENT QUESTION
I do not understand the answer to problem 13b. I do not understand why it is not correct to write the total distance covered
by the train as 890,010 meters. I do not understand this because 890 km equals 890,000 meters and if you add the 10 meters
the train overshot the end of the track by, it seems to me the answer should be 890,010 meters. I think the answer has
something to do with uncertainty, but I cannot figure out how to apply it to this problem.
INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE
If the given distance was 890. kilometers instead of 890 km, then the 0 would be significant and it would be appropriate to consider additional distances as small as 1 km.
Had the given distance been 890 000. meters then all the zeros would be significant and additional distances as small as 1 meter would be considered.
As it is only the 8 and the 9 are significant, so that distances less than 10 km would not be considered significant.
Please feel free to include additional comments or questions:
I’m catching on and things
"
&#This looks very good. Let me know if you have any questions. &#