z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Why is it so easy to underestimate systematic errors when measuring G ?
Author(s) -
D. F. Bartlett
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
philosophical transactions of the royal society a mathematical physical and engineering sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.074
H-Index - 169
eISSN - 1471-2962
pISSN - 1364-503X
DOI - 10.1098/rsta.2014.0021
Subject(s) - speculation , value (mathematics) , systematic error , computer science , economics , statistics , mathematics , macroeconomics
Before this Theo Murphy Meeting, my working hypothesis was that human activity during the measurement of G significantly affects the measurement itself. Noise caused by the gravity gradient of humans was indeed the reason why in one experiment the apparatus was raised 3 m above the floor. The meeting convinced me that all experimenters took adequate precautions against gravity gradients caused by human activity. During the meeting, another concern arose: was the cycle time between two states of the experiment so long that the environment changed significantly in the meantime? Once again, it appears that the experimenters were appropriately cautious. After the meeting, it became clear that ageing effects in thin, stressed wires could be an issue. I conclude with a speculation about a future 'atomic' value of G.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom