Uncertainty relations measurement process

The vast majority of literature on quantifying transport processes has been considered in the framework of laboratory experiments. Field experiments, which often display fundamental differences in transport behavior relative to laboratory experiments, are inevitably subject to serious uncertainties, relating to initial and bonndary conditions, medium heterogeneity, and experimental control. A major aspect— and difficulty—lies in integrating laboratory and field measurements and upscaling small-scale laboratory measurements to treatment of field-scale phenomena. 

In the context of assessment factors, it is important to distinguish between the two terms variability and uncertainty. Variability refers to observed differences attributable to true heterogeneity or diversity, i.e., inherent biological differences between species, strains, and individuals. Variability is the result of natural random processes and is usually not reducible by further measurement or study although it can be better characterized. Uncertainty relates to lack of knowledge about, e.g., models, parameters, constants, data, etc., and can sometimes be minimized, reduced, or eliminated if additional information is obtained (US-EPA 2003). 

F. A Measurement Process that Goes beyond Heisenberg s Uncertainty Relations... 

The uncertainty relations have played a central role since the field of quantum mechanics has been created. Prior to the existence of this theory, experimentalist knew, from their work, that every concrete measurement would necessarily carry an associated error. Yet, it was generally believed that this error was of no fundamental nature, and that one could, in principle, approach the true value by filtering out from a huge amount of measurements. Errors were part of the experimental process. With the advent of quantum physics, the error of measurements assumes a new, ontological status, rooted in the very heart of the theory. The theory itself would be built on this unavoidable error process. 

The new, more general uncertainty relations (90) were derived in a causal framework assuming that the physical properties of a quantum system are observer-independent, and even more, that they exist before the measurement process occurs. Naturally, because of the unavoidable physical interaction taking place during the measurement process, when the other conjugated observable is to be measured, the quantum system may not remain in the same state. In any case, in the last instance, the precision of a direct concrete measurement for a nonprepared system depends on the relative size between the measurement basic apparatus and the system on which the measurement is being performed. 

This value, as expected, relates to the maximum possible momentum transferred from the photon to the microparticle, even if some values of the diffusion angle obviously have a very low or even zero probability. As stated before, this formula for the uncertainty in the momentum of the small particle M after the measurement is precisely the same for both microscopes. In either case, it is necessary to keep in mind that, in this step of the measuring process of the error of the two conjugated observables, the interacting photon behaves like a corpuscle. 

By an argument based essentially on this sort of reasoning, W. Heisenberg could relate the error in position due to the measuring process, A, to the error in the momentum A (mu) when simultaneous determinations are desired. (The product of mass and velocity is called momentum. A signifies a difference, error or uncertainty.) A concise statement of the... 

The value of traceability for laboratories and customers are in many instances closely related to each other. It has to do with the immediate recognition that an accurate value can only be claimed within the limits of the boundaries indicated in the statement on uncertainty. This helps to avoid over-interpretation of the data and gives a clear view on the limits of validity. Failures in traceability potentially undermine the trust in the professional integrity of analytical chemists. Embarrassing results from these failures could be avoided by paying more attention to the nature and limitations of the traceability of references and of the measurement process itself. 

The challenges come from Refs. [1, 7, 8, 10]. The Copenhagen view on QM requires the existence of a classical macroscopic domain in order to explain the measurement process. Heisenberg uncertainty relations appear as the mathematical expression of a complementarity concept, quantifying the mutual disturbance that takes place in a simultaneous measurement of incompatible observables, say A and 6, that is, operators that do not commute. 

Measurement effects result from distortions to the process by the use of measurement equipment and/or data sampling methods. These distortions may significantly influence the comparison of results between protot q)e and model, or between two models. It is therefore essential to quantify the effects and the uncertainty related to the different techniques available. 

It is apparent, from the above short survey, that kinetic studies have been restricted to the decomposition of a relatively few coordination compounds and some are largely qualitative or semi-quantitative in character. Estimations of thermal stabilities, or sometimes the relative stabilities within sequences of related salts, are often made for consideration within a wider context of the structures and/or properties of coordination compounds. However, it cannot be expected that the uncritical acceptance of such parameters as the decomposition temperature, the activation energy, and/or the reaction enthalpy will necessarily give information of fundamental significance. There is always uncertainty in the reliability of kinetic information obtained from non-isothermal measurements. Concepts derived from studies of homogeneous reactions of coordination compounds have often been transferred, sometimes without examination of possible implications, to the interpretation of heterogeneous behaviour. Important characteristic features of heterogeneous rate processes, such as the influence of defects and other types of imperfection, have not been accorded sufficient attention. 

The principles of quality assurance are commonly related to product and process control in manufacturing. Today the field of application greatly expanded to include environmental protection and quality control within analytical chemistry itself, i.e., the quality assurance of analytical measurements. In any field, features of quality cannot be reproduced with any absolute degree of precision but only within certain limits of tolerance. These depend on the uncertainties of both the process under control and the test procedure and additionally from the expense of testing and controlling that may be economically justifiable. 

Measurements of terrestrial Mg isotope ratios on a plot of A Mg vs. 5 Mg are all within the region bounded by the equilibrium and kinetic mass fractionation laws given expected uncertainties (Fig. 5). Apparently, all of the terrestrial reservoirs represented by the data thus far are related to the primitive chondrite/mantle reservoir by relatively simple fractionation histories. Adherence of the data to the regions accessible by simple mass fractionation processes in Figure 5 (the shaded regions in Fig. 3) is testimony to the veracity of the fractionation laws since there is no reason to suspect that Mg could be affected by any processes other than purely mass-dependent fractionation on Earth. 

The uncertainty in the measurement of elution time / or elution volume of an unretained tracer is another potential source of error in the evaluation of thermodynamic quantities for the chromatographic process. It can be shown that a small relative error in the determination of r , will give rise to a commensurate relative error in both the retention factor and the related Gibbs free energy. Thus, a 5% error in leads to errors of nearly 5% in both k and AG. An analysis of error propagation showed that if the... 

The uncertainty associated with the quotient m/mR can be lowered by weighting relatively high amounts of sample and the reference material. Attributing the same uncertainty. Am, for mass measurements, the relative uncertainty of the quotient mlniR becomes minimal for m/mR equal to unity. The uncertainty in mA/mR)H, however, depends mainly on the uncertainties of m, mA, mR and those associated with current measurements. These last ones depend on the uncertainties associated with the measure of the currents in the overlapping wave, and the peak current of the reference redox process that can be related with m,mA,mR and the respective electrochemical coefficients of response. In practice, reasonable measurements can be obtained when 0.05 < ii/ip(R), i2/ip(R) < 20 whereas the uncertainty in these quantities must be minimal for values close to the unity. 

Unusual are measurements for which a direct link to the mole is useful. We should probably not talk about traceability in that connection, because that term is defined as a relation between measured values. An acceptable chain of measurements for compound X of established purity, containing element E that has isotope E and that would establish a link to the mole, then would take one of the following general routes the amount of substance (X)->n(E)->n( E)-> (12C) or n(X)->n(E)-> (C)-> (12C). The ratio of atomic masses m( E)lm( 12C) is also involved in the definition, but that ratio is known with a negligible uncertainty compared with the other links in the chain. Clearly, only in a few instances will laboratories attempt to execute such a chain of measurements for a link to the SI unit. Is it fear that such a difficult process is involved in every chemical analysis that has kept so many chemists from using the mole as the way to express chemical measurement values Or is it just habit and the convenience of a balance that subconsciously links amount of substance to amount of mass ... 

The phrase related to implies that the relationship is known and valid. This will only be realized if the relationship at every step of the process is clearly defined and valid. Hence the requirement for an unbroken chain of comparisons. The parallel between these issues and those addressed by method validation is worth noting. Validation is the process of establishing that a method is capable of measuring the desired measurand (analyte), with appropriate performance characteristics, such as level of uncertainty, robustness, etc. It should also address systematic effects, such as incomplete recovery of the analyte, interferences, etc. These latter issues can be dealt with by designing a method to eliminate any bias, at a given level of uncertainty, or if that is not possible, to provide a means of correcting for the bias. This may be done at the method level, by applying a correction factor to all results, or at the individual measurement level. 

---