2006-07-08 15:25:39 · 11 answers · asked by ? 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
Nope. No ones perfect and never going to be perfect. We can get more and more accurate as time goes on, but not perfect.
2006-07-08 18:22:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 2⤋
No measurement is absolutely 100% correct. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle puts a limit to the accuracy.
Take the example of the measurement of distance and diplacement, i.e. metre. We have several standard measurements of a metre. They all are correct to a certain degree, but in absolute sense they are all different.
1790 May 8 — The French National Assembly decides that the length of the new metre would be equal to the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second.
1791 March 30 — The French National Assembly accepts the proposal by the French Academy of Sciences that the new definition for the metre be equal to one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole.
1795 — Provisional metre bar constructed of brass.
1799 December 10 — The French National Assembly specifies that the platinum metre bar, constructed on 23 June 1799 and deposited in the National Archives, as the final standard.
1889 September 28 — The first General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) defines the length as the distance between two lines on a standard bar of an alloy of platinum with ten percent iridium, measured at the melting point of water.
1927 October 6 — The seventh CGPM adjusts the definition of the length to be the distance, at 0°C, between the axes of the two central lines marked on the prototype bar of platinum-iridium, this bar being subject to one standard atmosphere of pressure and supported on two cylinders of at least one centimetre diameter, symmetrically placed in the same horizontal plane at a distance of 571 millimetres from each other.
1960 October 20 — The eleventh CGPM defines the length to be equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the 2p10 and 5d5 quantum levels of the krypton-86 atom.
1983 October 21 — The seventeenth CGPM defines the length as equal to the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
Which one will you say absolutely correct? In the latest definition we have the speed of light in vacuum included. Is the number 299 792 458 absolute?
I feel you can now understand.............
2006-07-09 03:22:07 · answer #2 · answered by raja 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There are always uncertainties in every measurement. As an example, suppose that you are trying to weigh a diamond. You have a balance enclosed in a glass case to keep out drafts. There are still many problems remaining:
- Possible imprecision in the balance weights.
- Error in reading the balance needle to determine whether it is at zero.
- Jitter, caused by nearby traffic, or even by thermal motion in the balance, the weights, or the gem.
In any experiment, scientists are constantly examining things for possible sources of error, and doing whatever they can to reduce it. But elimination is impossible.
2006-07-08 22:32:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Only 1 kind of measurement: a count of a finite number of items. If there is one marble in a jar, a count revealing one marble is 100% accurate.
2006-07-09 00:29:59 · answer #4 · answered by joseph R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope.acc to heisenburgs uncerainity principle we cannot measur the position and momentum of a sub atomic particle simultaneously.it is a well accepted fact tht 100% is a dream.whenu learn u talk abt ideal systems but in practice it is not possible.
2006-07-09 00:49:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The heisenburg unscertinty priciple dictates that a measurement will never be 100% accurate.
2006-07-08 22:50:55 · answer #6 · answered by Grant H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, measurements can never be 100%, we human being are not 100%. There must be uncertainties, thats why most scientist calculate figures with error(uncertainties).
2006-07-08 22:40:00 · answer #7 · answered by Chibuzor O 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you're reffering to physical measurements. No they're not.
(dx)(dp) >= hbar/2
where dx is the uncertainty in position, dp is uncertainty in momentum, and hbar is equal to planck's constant divided by 2*pi. Neither dx or dp can be 0 or else the inequality will not hold, although it either one can be arbitrarily small in theory.
So, no, never 100%.
2006-07-08 22:32:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All measurements have some degree of uncertainty.
2006-07-08 22:44:13 · answer #9 · answered by insideoutsock 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Correct to 3 significant figures? Yes, sometimes.
Did you mean something of the order 100.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000% (33 significant figures)? No.
2006-07-08 22:31:54 · answer #10 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋