January, 2015

Digital and analog measurement uncertainties

Digital

Pretend that you are given a wooden block that is marked on its side as weighing 84 g.
What would you write down as the mass of the block?
Now pretend that you have a digital balance that is set to display one digit
after the decimal point (in grams). Also assume that this digital balance simply
displays a rounded value of its measure, as opposed to a truncated value. You
put the block on the balance and look at the display, and see what is shown
below:

You will probably agree that it is reasonable to record the reading as 83.4 g. You
now set sensitivity of the digital balance to display two digits after the decimal
point. This means that the balance is displaying readings to the nearest 0.01 g.
It is clear that the second digit after the decimal point will either be a 0 or 1 or
2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9.
Can you predict for sure what the display will show as the last digit?
Of course not. However, you can say what the probability is of the last digit
being a 6. There were ten possibilities for the next digit (0 through 9), therefore
there was a one out of ten chance of getting a particular digit. So we can say
that the probability of the next digit being a 6 was 0.1 (or 10 %). Before looking
at the display, though, there is no way of predicting with a greater certainty
than 10% that the last digit will be a 6.

With the sensitivity now set to display two digits after the decimal point
you see the following on the display:

What will you now record as the reading on the display?

Setting the digital balance to display three digits after the decimal point gives
the following:

What will you now record as the reading on the display?

In each case above, we can say that that the mass of the block lies somewhere on
an interval, the width of which reduces in size as the sensitivity of the electronic
balance increases. Hopefully you see that it is impossible, in practice, to reduce
the width of this interval to zeroone practical reason why the true value of
a quantity can never be known.
The display shows:
83.4 g
83.36 g
83.362 g

Inference about the mass of the block

it lies between 83.35 g and 83.44 g.
it lies between 83.355 g and 83.364 g.
it lies between
g and
g.

Table 1: What we can claim, based upon what we have measured.

When it comes to reporting our measurement, experimental uncertainties

are typically rounded to one significant figure. From there, the last significant
figure in any stated answer should usually be of the same order of magnitude (in
the same decimal position) as the uncertainty. When the scale is set to display
one significant figure, it would be reasonable to report the mass of the block as
(83.40 0.05) g; this lets the reader know that you are confident that the mass
of the block is no less than 83.35 g and no greater than 83.45 g.

Analog

Alternatively, we can use an analog balance instead of a digital balance to

measure the mass of the block, one which will have a needle that is displaced in
proportion to the weight of the object placed on the balance. We now must use
our judgement to read the scale after the needle has come to rest. Imagine that
when you put the mass on the balance, you see the following on the display:

Figure 1: Write down the reading on this scale:

g.

Next you decide, in order to improve your measurement, to choose a scale

that has markings (called graduations) every 1 gram. You now observe the
following on the display:

Figure 2: Write down the reading on this new scale:

g.

If you want to subdivide each graduation even further, you now have a
division marker every 0.1 g. You might even need a magnifying glass to read
the scale!

Figure 3: Write down the reading on this scale:

g.

It becomes impractical to continue to add more and more subdivisions.

Eventually the scale becomes too small to read. No matter what analog scale
you are reading, you will always need to make a judgement about what the
last digit is. It is then clear that the true value of the mass can never be
known. This is the case for all measurements, no matter what you are wanting
to measure.

It remains to discuss what uncertainty one should ascribe to the analogue

reading. With respect to Figure 2, one can probably be fairly comfortable
saying it is highly unlikely (i.e. you would bet someone 5$ that) the true value
is below 83.2 or above 83.6, just based on how sharp the pointer is that one is
measuring to, and the separation and clarity of the ruled markings. Thus it is
reasonable to claim that the length is 83.4 0.2 grams, so long as you explain
why you came up with this number. Note that if the object you are aligning
to is not as well-defined as the arrowhead in Figure 2, the uncertainty would
typically increase. So long as the distance between ruled markings on your
analogue instrument is not unreasonably large, it is often reasonable to take the
uncertainty associated with the measurement to be approximately one half of the
smallest scale division. So long as you are aware of what this uncertainty really
means (i.e. you would bet someone 5$ that the real value is the nominal value,
within your specified range of uncertainty), then you can use your judgement
to estimate the uncertainty (it doesnt have to be a half of the smallest scale
division), but you must explain how you came up with your estimate for the
uncertainty.