How To Science [Part 4: Science]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 гру 2017
- PDF: www.welchlabs.com/guides
Support Welch Labs: www.patreon.com/welchlabs
Music:
www.premiumbeat.com/royalty-f...
www.premiumbeat.com/royalty-f...
www.premiumbeat.com/royalty-f... - Наука та технологія
![How to Science [Part 5: Mathematics]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sTSNTWKGkbw/mqdefault.jpg)
![How to Science [Part 5: Mathematics]](/img/tr.png)
Hey Welch Labs, love your appearance and cameo in 3Blue1Brown's latest Christmas special!
Thanks!
Way to get me interested in mathematics and physics back again! Thanks.
Awesome, thanks for watching!
First time i took out a calculator, Pen and Paper for a UA-cam video and i guess maybe the first time for recreational use! Keep Up the good Work, love it. Greetings from Germany
People like you must born more often :) Superb.. Thanks for all the videos.
Thanks for watching!
Oh, I am so glad you replied. Please keep making these nice videos, they are very Beautiful.
King of youtube science in my book!
Great work, Welch! Hope you will make the greatest series someday
Damn you're so dedicated in science. It makes me happy :)
You're back!
Bravo! you discovered a math formula. It was wonderful to watch.
I am a simple man. I see a new Welch Labs video, I click immediately.
Looking forward for part 5
Great video!!
Frequency = k * sqrt(tension)
For string 2: k = 99,9 / sqrt(1000) = 3,15... Hz * g^-1/2
So for instance tension 4000 gets you frequency = 3,15 x sqrt(4000) = 200 Hz
Frequency = k / sqrt(mass/length)
For string 2: k = 123,6 / sqrt(0,0610) = 500 Hz * cm^q/2 * g^-1/2
So for instance mass/length 0,0396 gets you frequency = 500 / sqrt(0,0396) = 2,51E3 Hz
*_Drops everything he is going to watch vid_*
Wao, love your videos
Question: Did you weigh the strings with the usual ball ends still attached? If so, did you "sacrifice" one string to get the ball out and weigh it so you can remove its weight from the measurd values? Did you unwind the strings fully to their real max. length, as they usuall are wind onto themselves when wrapping the ball end (which is not a ball at all, but it is being called a ball nonetheless).... Or did you cut an exact length of "straight" spring to make the calculations. Also, some strings seem to be nylon, do they simply have a knot on the end instead of the "ball"? Btw. great series, your videos are truly very good!
Thanks for watching - great question - I have a footnote on this in the pdf!
I wish you were my teacher in school, it wouldve changed my life
Hey Welch Labs, I really like your videos, put subtitles in Portuguese(Brazil), please!
Eu gosto muito dos teus vídeos, coloque legendas em português (Brasil), por favor!
the moment u see welch labs..*click intensivly*..
This seems more slower than the imaginary number series (which was super), however i think it's still really good.
I figured out that
Frequency^2 = tension * Constant
But I am sure about it
Can any of you tell me if I have done any mistakes
Meg Tube A good way to check your work is to graph it (desmos.com is good) and try to do a regression. The regression curve would be f=k*sqrt(T). Look at how it fits and try different curves as well to see if another type of curve fits better. Good luck.
Another tactic would be to graph tension on the x-axis and frequency^2 on the y-axis. This way you can do a simple linear regression rather than a square-root regression. Also, humans can more clearly identify straight lines than what kind of curve something is, so it'll be easier to visually check.
Spoilers: All the data points are super close to the line y = 4.3011x.
It hasn't even updated on the channel yet; can't find it there.
This is a very interesting series, but i feel it has some issues. I think you spend too much time on some very simple issues (like what does it mean if halving the length doubles the frequency), while not mentioning some critical aspects of experiments, namely measurement error. I think taking into account errors and uncertainty should be as basic as taking measurements. Just look at any experiment done by professor Walter Lewin. He never leaves out the uncertainty.
Measurement error and limited experimental methods has to do with technology instead of science, and science is the focus of Welch's series. The difference between the two is subtle and sometime hard to distinguish because science and technology are intertwined.
The error in measurement is caused by imperfect technology, and the actual measurement (as well as whatever inferences about he natural world that you draw from the measurement) is the science. It seems like the series he is doing ignores technological limitations (for example in the last episode he measured frequency with a high speed camera instead of repeating Mersenne's method). His choice is arbitrary and practical; you could also get into a rabbit hole with the history of technology.
But I would like to see a history of technology series nonetheless! (maybe not from welch)
That may be so, but all the series so far has been focused on experimental measurements and deriving relationships from them. Whatever the end goal is, measurement features heavily in it.
I think as Jackson said, Welch is trying to focus on the experimental concepts and thought processes, and not as much on the technicalities of the experiments. But I do agree with Cristi that errors and uncertainties are too important to just gloss over, but perhaps he will address that in a later video, or he could make a "footnote" video like what CGP Grey and MinutePhysics do.
But reducing measurement error is a central part of experimental design and a critical component of evaluating operationalizations, which are all contained in the art and methodology of scientific research. Many observations that are done in scientific research are not directly observable so the choice of measuring equipment and methods are in many cases one of the most important factors of conducting a good experiment. Add to that the many experiments that are dealing with inherently stochastic processes (radioactive decay, quantum mechanics, much of the social sciences...) and we have a scientific method that is underlined with understanding how to statistically interpret experimental data to draw likely conclusions from. Ask any researcher how they use statistics to analyze data and you will hear that methods such as null hypothesis testing or Bayesian statistics are central to the scientific method.
"science doesn't involve measurement error" is probably the worst flaw in any theory. Literally no experiment will ever be perfect due to normal variation of results. That is, due to measurement and the physical process, nothing will fit perfectly into a "A =constant x B x C" result. B and C are both (according to some natural law) varying naturally, and your measurement of them has a degree of error. A will have a degree of error that is some combination of the two and you need to adjust for that.
This assumption that all physics follows perfect laws and we just are bad at measuring them correctly is factually inaccurate and hubris.
O, is it eventually going to be a series on Fourier transformation , fft, if it's so then i can't wait for it!!!!
Already got my spectrum analyzer ready
Haha awesome. Just heard 3blue1brown is making an FT video - should be awesome!
Welch Labs what a coincidence, that video is really awesome!!
By the way I'm eager to see, how you will shape this series in future . Thnx for this wonderful channel.
The series is cool as usual for the channel, but I hear one little problem : when you say sentences, the audio cuts just after you finished, making it sounds like the audio is chopped, and it's a little bit strange, and it cuts the rhythm of the speech.
Thanks for watching! Noted.
cool
When you calculate the percent error you need to divide by the observed frequency, not the predicted one.
Otherwise, overestimating is better than underestimating.
I can't click the PDF
He should have added a "" or "" for the link to be parsed as a link. www.welchlabs.com/guides
Juan T ok thanks!
Frequency doubles when tension goes up four times
My guess:
F = K * sqrt(T)
4000 => 199.8
5000 => 223.383
9000 = > 299.7
Evyatar Baranga I think formula is
F^2= k * t
that's the same....
F= sqrt ( k* t) it isn't the same
F = sqrt (k*t) = sqrt(k) * sqrt(t), but sqrt(k) = const, so sqrt(k) = c,
F = c*sqrt(t)
welsh lab hi im new too the channle
What's an expeeeeermint?
First
Great video btw
I hate it when you say "WHAT DO YOU THINK?"
This means the video is going to end now.
Do you have any idea what I'm trying to say? Think twice before you comment on something.
No offence taken friend.. Keep smiling keep learning 😊
Sorry if I was rude.
362 views yay
Hello noti squad
Lol, sand in tacos...
I guess: f ∝ sqrt(t) and f ∝ 1 / sqrt(m)
200 views???
Would you came to india
My IQ ∝ 1/(Time studies * Time sleeped)
Also please do some vid on PDE.
Henry Jiang so the less you study or the less you sleep makes you even smarter... how is that possible?
that is a nonsense if you don't state what is the definition of IQ
:())"#:!#)"#) #:)"# "! )Udi daw o
-IQ doesn't change with age usually
-a lot of high ability people tend to sleep less
-School is so dumb it can't make anyone smart
So i guess you'right
I don't know the level of your average audience, but I feel that you're going unnecessarily slow and low-level on the inverse proportionality part.
Fair point! Noted. Thanks for watching!
I still don't understand the point of this series. Also it feels like everything is going too slow.
The point is to teach you the scientific method. And the encourage you to do the calculations on your own. And since I value quality over quantity (or production speed which is the same as quantity). I can imagine how long it must take to make these videos if one single person is doing everything which needs to be done in creating a video like this.
The point is not to spoon feed you with the details and formulas and stuff but rather to make you step into the scientists' shoes and try and discover things yourself. That for me is quite brilliant as I'm so into the video ...really curious to see what's next ! It's how science should be - fun and exciting