Context: Experiment investigating the relationship between radiation and distance using a Geiger counter, stopwatch and metre ruler.

After doing some research (page 3) on how to find the uncertainty of count rate, I came across this as the best estimate: N/T ± √N/T - where N is the number of counts and T is the time. (T in this case was 10 seconds measured on a stopwatch).

What would the uncertainty be given that there is also an uncertainty in T due to human reaction time (my exam board tends to go with about ±0.1s I believe), which leads to an uncertainty within an uncertainty? (N/T±0.1 ±√N/T±0.1)

  • $\begingroup$ To be conservative, maximise the uncertainty, that is, take the smallest $T$ consistent with your data. $\endgroup$ Feb 5 '18 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ The only value of T I had was 10s, I'm just wondering how to deal with the extra uncertainty on T within the ±√N/T±0.1 $\endgroup$
    – Oliver
    Feb 5 '18 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need to have an uncertainty in the uncertainty. $\endgroup$
    – stafusa
    Feb 5 '18 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right, am I just misunderstanding how to apply the √N rule? $\endgroup$
    – Oliver
    Feb 5 '18 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ I think that the subject you are interested in is called "propagation of errors". Here's a link with some information ( ipl.physics.harvard.edu/wp-uploads/2013/03/… ). You might also try googling "propagation of errors" for more info. $\endgroup$
    – user93237
    Feb 5 '18 at 18:28

How big is $N$? Since you know $T$ to 1 part in 100, if

$$N >> 100^2 = 10000,$$

then $\delta T$ is the dominant source of error. (And of course, if $N << 10000$, then the statistical error dominates.)

In general, if the sources of error are uncorrelated you can add the them in quadrature:

$$ (\delta\omega)^2 = (\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial N}\delta N)^2 + ( \frac{\partial \omega}{\partial T}\delta T)^2 $$

where the rate is:

$$\omega(N, T) = N/T$$


$$ \delta\omega = \sqrt{\frac{\omega} T[1+\frac{\omega} T(\delta T)^2]}$$

  • $\begingroup$ Actually, could you explain going from (δω)^2 to δω please? $\endgroup$
    – Oliver
    Feb 5 '18 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Oliver If the typo in the exponent threw you off, I fixed it. Otherwise, just take the derivatives and express in terms of $\omega$. $\endgroup$
    – JEB
    Feb 5 '18 at 23:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.