Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics.research    |    Current physics research. (Moderated)    |    17,516 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 16,449 of 17,516    |
|    Tom Roberts to Savin Beniwal    |
|    Re: If errors is higher than best fit va    |
|    29 Mar 19 22:09:11    |
      From: tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net              On 3/27/19 6:10 AM, Savin Beniwal wrote:       > Let's say we performed an experiment using some theoretical model and       > observational data points. Our aim is to get the best fit values of       > unknown parameters with their error using observations. Using some       > statistical techniques i.e. least square fitting or chi-square or MCMC,       > we got the best fit values and error for each parameter. Suppose the       > error of parameters is higher than their best-fit values       > i.e. [A=0.2+-1.5] here the best-fit value is 0.2 and error is 1.5.       > In this scenario what could you conclude from this experiment? Please       > put your comments and thoughts.              You can conclude that the result is consistent with A being zero. If the       theoretical value of A is anywhere -2 < A < 2 or so, you can conclude       that the experiment is consistent with the prediction of the theory.              A famous example of this is the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887.       Note that in 1887 statistical error analysis was not known, and       errorbars were not used. One can look at their fig. 6 and imagine there       is a variation consistent with the predicted sinusoid, and there is a       large literature of non-physicist authors claiming M&M "saw the ether"       [#]. But each point in that plot is an average of 20 values, from which       one can estimate errorbars, and they are roughly five times larger than       the variations. So a modern conclusion is that they did not see any       significant variation of fringe position with orientation, fully       consistent with the prediction of SR.               [#] There are many more papers about the similar but much        more voluminous measurements of D. C. Miller in the 1920s-        30s. A modern error analysis shows his measurements also        display no significant variation with orientation, and        are fully consistent with the prediction of SR. Unlike        M&M, Miller's raw data have been preserved.        https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238              Tom Roberts              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca