is itpossible to get experimental error as small as you want just by repeating measurements again and again?

Answer 1

There are two types of errors. One human error another instrumental error.
We know the accuracy of measurement of instruments.

Any error in the result must be within this instrumetal error.

Human error must be eliminated in total.

This can be done only by repating the experiment.

Any result which is not within the instrumetal error must be totaly rejected and we find the mean value of the results which are within the instrumental errors

Answer 2

A good question. Up to a point you can reduce uncertainty by taking several measurements and averaging them. In fact this is usually standard procedure. In the days when a selective availability signal was built into the civilian version of the Global Positioning System to limit its accuracy, a surveyor could get a position of a fixed point on the Earth's surface as accurate as that available to the US military by leaving the GPS there and averaging the reading over a long period. The limit to accuracy is set by the fact that, for instance, if you're measuring a length with a ruler and your accuracy is limited by thermal expansion and contraction, and you try to reduce the error by keeping the temperature constant, you'll need to measure the temperature with a thermometer, and there's a limit to the accuracy of the thermometer, and so on.

Answer 3

Yes as u u repeat the experiment the average experimental error gets lower as u get more accurate but there is a point where the experimental error can b no longer decreased

Answer 4

Great question! The underpinnings of determinism, eh? Well, you will be surprised to find that there are a myriad of processes in the universe that have an element of chaotic behavior. You will never be able to replicate the experiment, from instance to instance. So it is not even just the problem of creating a statistic by repeated measurement, but one of representation of process. For instance, you can characterize turbulence in fluid systems, but you can not predict precisely an exact instance. Virtually all systems will approach some scale at which predictability is hampered.

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

There are two types of errors. One human error another instrumental error.
We know the accuracy of measurement of instruments.

ok
i think this is the best way
Any error in the result must be within this instrumetal error.

Human error must be eliminated in total.

This can be done only by repating the experiment.

Any result which is not within the instrumetal error must be totaly rejected and we find the mean value of the results which are within the instrumental errors

Answer 6

not if you keep measuring with the same instrument. that's why you learned about significant figures. example: if you take a school ruler marked out in 1/8 inches and try to measure a length, you can measure as many times as you want and you'll never get an answer accurate to more than 1/8 inch (0.125). if you take the same length and measure with a caliper accurate to 1/100th inch, you'll get an answer good to 0.01 or about 12 times more accurate.

moral: you can't get your measurement more accurate than the limit of your measuring device.

good luck!

Answer 7

The answer is YES, assume the experimental error is non-biased.