Computational Laboratory Activity 1

Kyle Benjamin and Matt Nicolau

Terms and Abbreviations
mA, mB,
mC: Mean for the speeds of A, B and C
sA, sB, sC: Standard deviation for A, B and C
N: Number of data points in each column [20]
sdmA, sdmB,

sdmC: Standard deviation of the mean for A, B and C

c: The value of the speed of light [3.0 x 108 m/s]

m: The mass of an electron [9.11 x 10-31 kg]

EkA,
EkB, EkC: Relativistic kinetic energy of A, B and C
TeA,
TeB, TeC: Total energy of A, B and C
UEkA, UEkB, UEkC: Uncertainty in relativistic kinetic/total energy of A, B and C
Average Values for Measured Speed (and Uncertainty)
mA = (0.9367 2.1208 x 10-4) c
mB = (0.9448 0.0014) c
mC = (0.9240 4.3468 x 10-4) c
Values for Relativistic Kinetic Energy (and Uncertainty)
EkA = (1.5221 x 10-13 3.7964 x 10-16) J
EkB = (1.6827 x 10-13 2.9913 x 10-16) J
EkC = (1.3242 x 10-13 5.8895 x 10-16) J
Values for Total Kinetic Energy (and Uncertainty)
TeA = (2.3420 x 10-13 3.7964 x 10-16) J
TeB = (2.5026 x 10-13 2.9913 x 10-15) J
TeC = (2.1441 x 10-13 5.8895 x 10-16) J
Formulas
E k = mc 2

[(1 )
u2
c2

1/2

T E = mc + E k

(
T E = (
E k =

dE k
2
du | u u )
dE k
2
du | u E )

Relative Uncertainty =

Absolute Uncertainty
Measured V alue

Derivation for Calculating Uncertainty

dE k
d
du = du
dE k
du =

[mc (1 ) 1]
mc [(1 )
1]
u2
c2

d
du

1/2

u2
c2

1/2

dE k
du
dE k
du
dE k
du | u

( )
= mc ( ) (1 )
= mu (1 )
2

d 1u
= mc 2 du
c2
2 1
2

u2
c2

u2
c2
3/2

1/2
3/2

( )
2u
c2

Instrument A vs. B vs. C

Based on the above calculations, it was determined that instrument A recorded the the best
results. Its standard deviation (sA) had the smallest value, and its standard deviation of the mean (sdmA)
yielded a comparatively low uncertainty. Furthermore, the total kinetic energy for instrument A [(2.3420
x 10-13 3.7964 x 10-16) J] was the most accurate as compared to the accepted value of 2.34 x 10-13 J.
In regards to uncertainty, some noticeable observations are present. Concerning instrument A, the
measurements are both accurate (given how close the total energy is to the accepted value) and precise
(the standard deviation for A was the lowest for all 3 instruments). It seems there is little overall error
with instrument A.
Instrument B appears to contain the highest error, both in accuracy and precision. In terms of
precision, the standard deviation for u [(sB = 0.0061)c] was the highest for all 3 instruments,
demonstrating a wide range in recorded speeds. This would presumably be due to random error.
Additionally, the measured speed of the electrons for instrument B [(0.9448 0.0014) c] was fairly
inaccurate compared to A [(2.3420 x 10-13 3.7964 x 10-16)c], whose data produced the more accurate
value for the total energy. In comparison, instrument B yielded a total energy of (2.5026 x 10-13 2.9913
x 10.-15) J. This result is noticeably higher than the accepted value of 2.34 x 10-13 J. This discrepancy in
accuracy would likely be due to a systematic error, such as faulty equipment.
Instrument C, while a bit more precise than instrument B (a standard deviation of 0.0019c as
compared to 0.0061c), was still less accurate than instrument A (which had a standard deviation of the
mean of 4.3468 x 10-4c). Again, the error is likely systematic based on the lower value for total energy as
compared to the accepted value.
In conclusion, based on the above supporting data and interpretations, instrument A is the best
instrument of the three used in this experiment.
Recommendations for Future Procedures
The relative uncertainties for instruments A, B, and C are as follows:
A: 0.023%
B: 0.148%
C: 0.229%
Based off the value for speed from instrument A [(0.9367 9.4846 x 10-4) c], to achieve a 0.01%
relative uncertainty the following precision would be required:
x 100
0.01% = 0.9367
Solving for x (which in this case is the absolute uncertainty), the precision required would need to be
9.4x10-5c. To achieve this type of precision it would be potentially useful to re-calibrate instrument A, as
its relative uncertainty is already quite low. A slight fine tuning would presumably yield a 0.01% relative
uncertainty, as the procedure used with instrument A to obtain the data in this report was rather close to
that value.