REPORT STATISTICS/ANALYSIS

TEMPLATE
STATISTICS
Talk about amount of data collected, quote quantities. Systematic errors if any and what was done to remedy this. Table of stats including: Number of data sets total Sample size arithmetic mean standard error of the mean uncertainty Confidence interval 90% 99%

Talk about standard deviations of specific data sets, skew of data, possible anomalies and their effect on the overall data set. Quantitative or qualitative fit of data to accepted or theoretical values mentioned if applicable. For last experiment correlation and covariance of variables.

Insert pictorial representation of data here.

ANALYSIS
Mistakes we made during the experiment, and therefore what we could have done next time. Better methods of collecting data with hindsight. What actually went well with the experiment. What skills we learned e.g. excel functions, statistical analysis, interpersonal skills, time management etc.

1: DIFFRACTION GRATINGS EXPERIMENT

STATISTICS
We obtained a reasonably large sample size of 93 readings, but the original experiment suffered from widespread systematic errors as detailed below. It was incorrectly assumed from a preliminary experiment that all maxima are the same distance away from their closest neighbour. This skewed the results, leading to an overestimate of the bright fringe separation. The bright fringes appear at certain angles away from each other, which geometrically means that fringes tend to have larger separations between themselves the further away they are from the central maxima. Originally assuming that the fringes were all the same distance from each other led us to measure only the outermost fringes, thinking that we could increase accuracy this way. Luckily a solution was found; we counted the number of maxima on the board in the experiment, which implied the maxima number of a hypothetical fringe with a distance half of that measured. For example If there are nine fringes then one of them is the central maximum so minus one then divide by two to get the maxima number, in this case four. This fix led to a huge increase in precision and accuracy. Another large systematic error was present during this experiment; the small angle approximation was used for angles as large as 29 degrees. This was accounted for during data processing. Number of data sets 3 total Sample size 93 Weighted mean 533 nm standard error of the mean 0.1 nm uncertainty Confidence interval 90% 1.28 99% 2.01

1.41%

TA B L E 1 : B A S I C D E S C R I P TI V E S TA TI S TI C S A B O U T T HE D I F F R A C T I O N G R A T I N G S E X P E R I M E N T.

The actual labelled value given by the laser for the wavelength was 532 nm, 0.27% lower than the calculated value, which seems to be quite accurate. The skew of the data was 1.60 which means that more values were larger than the mean than were smaller than it. There was quite a small standard deviation of 7.52 nm. There was a mysterious cluster, four consequetive points, of data that were between three and four standard deviations away from the mean, all skewed in the same direction, which implies some kind of unaccounted for systematic error. It should however be noted that later data sets were considerably less accurate that sets recorded first because of the higher fractional error due to a lower number of visible maximas observed.

Calculated wavelength compared to labelled value

570 560 Calculated wavelength (nm) 550 540 530 520 510 500 490 480
C HA R T 1 : D A TA F R O M TH E D I F F R A C T I O N G R A TI N G S E X P E R I M E N T . C A L C U L A TE D W A V E L E N G T HS O F L A S E R D I S P L A Y E D A L O N G S I D E T HE L A B E L L E D V A L U E , W I T H E R R O R B A R S .

(nm) Labelled value

2: SINGLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

STATISTICS
A very small sample size of 21 readings was obtained, but as we were plotting results as we went along, we saw good agreement between results and so justified not taking more readings. However we were plotting points using an equation that did not apply to single slit diffraction, after correcting for this during processing, more data is desirable (as always). It was wrongly assumed that the equation for single and double slit diffraction was the same. A fix of sorts was implemented by assuming that maxima occur directly between minima. It should be noted that there is no simple, accurate way to predicted maxima positions for a single slit [1]. However the assumption that maxima occur directly between minima is a close enough approximation. Number of data sets 4 total Sample size 21 Weighted mean 62.7 m standard error of the mean 0.1 m uncertainty Confidence interval 90% 2.82 99% 4.41

12.52%

TA B L E 2 : B A S I C D E S C R I P TI V E S TA TI S TI C S A B O U T T HE S I N G L E S L I T E X P E R I M E N T .

The standard deviation was 7.85 m, rather high as is shown in the uncertainty. This was down the large fractional errors for small input data, which combined in quadrature. The slit to screen distance should have been larger to combat this. The skew was 2.95, caused by the high error first maxima measurements, one of which was more than three standard deviations away from the weighted mean, quite odd for such a small sample size.

Calculated slit sizes

120 100 Slit width (m) 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 maxima
C HA R T 2 : D A TA F R O M TH E S I N G L E S L I T E X P E R I M E N T . C A L C U L A TE D S L I T W I D T H S O F S I N G L E S L I T D I S P L A Y E D A L O N G S I D E T HE W E I G H T E D M E A N , W I T H E R R O R B A R S .

a (m) Weighted average

As can be seen in Chart 3, predictions of maxima positions using the weighted mean closely agree with observed the positions observed. It should again be stressed that there is no simple model that predicts maxima positions for single slit diffraction.

Measured maxima positions versus predicted maxima positions

0.03000 0.02500 Maxima position (m) 0.02000 0.01500 0.01000 0.00500 0.00000 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Maxima
C HA R T 3 : D A TA F R O M TH E S I N G L E S L I T E X P E R I M E N T . C A L C U L A TE D S L I T W I D T H S O F S I N G L E S L I T D I S P L A Y E D A L O N G S I D E T HE W E I G H T E D M E A N , W I T H E R R O R B A R S .

Measured values Predicted values

3: DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

A very large amount of data was collected for this experiment, 110 readings There were no systematic errors that I can think of, although I feel there was not enough agreement between the data.

Number of data sets 4

total Sample size 110

Weighted mean 200 m

standard error of the mean 0.07 m

uncertainty

Confidence interval 90% 2.82 99% 4.42

9.00%

TA B L E 3 : B A S I C D E S C R I P TI V E S TA TI S TI C S A B O U T T HE D O U B L E S L I T E X P E R I M E N T .

There was a standard deviation of 18.0 m, and a skew of -0.313. There were two results which were around four standard deviations away from the mean, one high and one low; this is plausibly down to random error with so large a sample size. There was little agreement between different data sets, even the last two which coincidently were measured under (supposedly) the exact same conditions. This implies there was some variable which was not controlled.

Calculated slit separations

300 280 260 Slit separation (m) 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100
C HA R T 4 : D A TA F R O M TH E D O U B L E S L I T E X P E R I M E N T. C A L C U L A T E D S L I T S E P A R A T I O N S O F D O U B L E S L I T D I S P L A Y E D A L O N G S I D E TH E W E I G H TE D M E A N , W I T H E R R O R B A R S .

S (m) weighted mean

It is noteworthy that other physics groups reported calculating similar values for the slit separation. There was some agreement between experimental data and theoretical predictions assuming that the separation was the average, mostly in sets two and three. Sets one and four did not look like they fit the prediction much at all. See chart five (in appendix, too big to fit into this section).

4: APERTURE DIFFRACTION EXPERIMENT

A small sample size of 32 readings was obtained, however each reading took twice as long as other previous experiments, more could have been recorded in the allocated time. Every second maxima was recorded to maximise spread of collected data. It was assumed that the apertures bright ring diameter could be modelled as twice the relevant maxima position for a single slit. It was also initially assumed that the first visible bright ring was maxima one and so on, however we suspected that the bright central maximum may have overlapped with other bright areas meaning that the visible bright disk we recorded may not have been maxima one but maxima two or three or even four. This was accounted for by calculating the diameter four times, first assuming that what the maxima recorded really were true, then assuming that they were one off, then two off and then three off. This was further complicated by the fact that each data set could have been recorded differently, for example set one could have recorded the true maxima, and set two could be one off. Therefore weighted averages (and other relevant statistics) had to be calculated separately for each data set. These separate weighted averages and their standard errors could then also be taken as a data set, the weighted average of these weighted averages could then be calculated along with other useful information.

Number of data sets 5

total Sample size 32

arithmetic mean 516 m

Weighted standard error of the mean 19.5 m

uncertainty 21.4 %

TA B L E 4 : B A S I C D E S C R I P TI V E S TA TI S TI C S A B O U T T HE A P E R TU R E D I F F R A C TI O N EXPERIMENT.

It was also assumed that the circular aperture would theoretically produce a pattern similar to the single slit, but in a continuous circle. (need to test)!!!!!!!!

5: WIRE DIFFRACTION EXPERIMENT

STATISTICS
A large amount of data was collected for this experiment, especially considering that each data point required two measurements.

Number of data sets 10

total Sample size 101

arithmetic mean 94.3 m

Weighted standard error of the mean 2.73 m

uncertainty 29.1 %

TA B L E 5 : B A S I C D E S C R I P TI V E S TA TI S TI C S A B O U T T HE W I R E D I F F R A C T I O N E X P E R I M E N T .

The results had a large standard deviation of 27.4 m The wire width calculations were considerably further from the mean when calculated from the first maxima readings of each data set, this is because fractional errors add in quadrature and the fractional errors are much greater in small measurements. This greatly increased the standard deviation.