Experiment 1: Random Motions

PHY 301M
Camron Matschek
Lab Partner: Justin Cram

Introduction:
This report presents a probability distribution in the number of times a marble falls into
different slots after falling through a matrix of nails. As a marble rolls down a consistent
incline the marble will bump into many of the nails, randomizing it's trajectory. This
random motion was observed in a test of 300 marbles, and was recorded and graphed.
The number of paths that lead to each particular end slot are predicted to be directly
proportional to the number of marbles that fall into that particular slot. By comparing the
number of possible paths the marble can take to get to each slot, it was predicted that
the graph of the resulting marble drops will match closely with that of Gaussian curve.
First we will drop a glass marble which is estimated to match very closely with that of
the Gaussian model. Secondly, a steel marble will be dropped instead. An larger bounce
distance is expected with the steel marble, and thus a flatter Gaussian curve as
comparison is predicted.

n50
x

n(x)

xn(x)

x-xag

(x-xag)2

n(x)(x-xag)2

G(x)

P(x)

-10

-10

-11.5

131.52

131.52

0.003

0.01

-9

-10.5

109.59

0.00

0.005

0.00

-8

-8

-9.5

89.65

89.65

0.008

0.01

-7

-14

-8.5

71.71

143.43

0.013

0.03

-6

-6

-7.5

55.78

55.78

0.020

0.01

-5

-15

-6.5

41.84

125.52

0.030

0.04

-4

-8

-5.5

29.90

59.81

0.041

0.03

-3

-18

-4.5

19.97

119.80

0.054

0.08

-2

-8

-3.5

12.03

48.12

0.067

0.05

-1

-3

-2.5

6.09

18.28

0.079

0.04

-1.5

2.16

17.25

0.088

0.10

-0.5

0.22

1.10

0.092

0.06

16

0.5

0.28

2.26

0.092

0.10

27

1.5

2.35

21.11

0.087

0.11

24

2.5

6.41

38.46

0.078

0.08

25

3.5

12.47

62.36

0.066

0.06

24

4.5

20.54

82.14

0.053

0.05

42

5.5

30.60

183.59

0.041

0.08

24

6.5

42.66

127.99

0.029

0.04

7.5

56.73

56.73

0.020

0.01

10

10

8.5

72.79

72.79

0.013

0.01

Total

79

116

-30.8

815.28

1457.67

0.980

Xavg = 1.46835

= 4.29552

n300
x

n(x) xn(x)

x-xag

(x-xag)2

n(x)(x-xag)2

G(x)

P(x)

-10

-11.4

129.83

0.00

0.002

0.00

-9

-36

-10.4

108.04

432.15

0.004

0.01

-8

-16

-9.4

88.25

176.50

0.006

0.01

-7

-35

-8.4

70.46

352.31

0.011

0.01

-6

-30

-7.4

54.67

273.36

0.018

0.01

-5

-40

-6.4

40.88

327.08

0.028

0.02

-4

14

-56

-5.4

29.10

407.35

0.040

0.04

-3

21

-63

-4.4

19.31

405.47

0.055

0.06

-2

27

-54

-3.4

11.52

311.04

0.069

0.08

-1

22

-22

-2.4

5.73

126.10

0.083

0.06

30

-1.4

1.94

58.31

0.093

0.09

32

32

-0.4

0.16

4.97

0.099

0.09

31

62

0.6

0.37

11.38

0.098

0.09

33

99

1.6

2.58

85.10

0.092

0.10

24

96

2.6

6.79

162.97

0.080

0.07

26

130

3.6

13.00

338.06

0.066

0.08

22

132

4.6

21.21

466.71

0.051

0.06

14

98

5.6

31.43

439.96

0.038

0.04

72

6.6

43.64

392.74

0.026

0.03

45

7.6

57.85

289.25

0.017

0.01

10

60

8.6

74.06

444.37

0.010

0.02

Total

340

474

-29.3

810.81

5505.19

0.987

Xavg = 1.4683544

= 4.0245796

nsteel
x

n(x) xn(x)

x-xag

(x-xag)2

n(x)(x-xag)2

G(x)

P(x)

-10

-10.6

112.06

0.00

0.007

0.00

-9

-18

-9.6

91.89

183.78

0.011

0.02

-8

-16

-8.6

73.72

147.43

0.017

0.02

-7

-35

-7.6

57.55

287.73

0.024

0.05

-6

-30

-6.6

43.37

216.87

0.032

0.05

-5

-15

-5.6

31.20

93.61

0.042

0.03

-4

-20

-4.6

21.03

105.15

0.053

0.05

-3

-12

-3.6

12.86

51.43

0.063

0.04

-2

-10

-2.6

6.69

33.43

0.072

0.05

-1

10

-10

-1.6

2.51

25.15

0.079

0.10

-0.6

0.34

2.40

0.083

0.07

0.4

0.17

1.03

0.083

0.06

14

1.4

2.00

14.00

0.080

0.07

12

36

2.4

5.83

69.94

0.073

0.12

28

3.4

11.66

81.59

0.065

0.07

15

4.4

19.48

58.45

0.054

0.03

42

5.4

29.31

205.19

0.044

0.07

6.4

41.14

41.14

0.034

0.01

16

7.4

54.97

109.94

0.025

0.02

8.4

70.80

0.00

0.018

0.00

10

60

9.4

88.63

531.76

0.012

0.06

Total

99

58

-12.3

777.21

2260.02

0.971

1.000

Xavg = 1.3941176

= 4.8587329

Data Analysis:
Graphs aiding in the visualization of the prior graphs are attached in the follow pages.

Sample Calculations
Calculation of average x position, xavg, for 340 marble rolls:

xav =

10
P

xn(x)

x= 10

0 ( 10) + 4 ( 9) + 2 ( 8) + 5 ( 7) + ...
= 1.3411
340

Calculation of for 350 marble rolls using the method of the lab manual: First,

xav =

xav )2 = 0 (129.83) + 4 (108.04) + 2 (88.25) + ... = 5505.19

n(x)(x

so

2 =
and

n(x)(x xav )2
5505.19
=
= 16.239
N 1
339

= 4.0298
which

rounds off to

= 4.03
Calculation of the Gaussian distribution using = 4.03, and xavg = 0.177: the equation
for the Guassian is

G(x) = p
exp
22

xav )2

(x

22

using x=7 as an example

G(x) = p

1
24.032

exp

(7 0.177)2
= .038
2 4.032

Calculation of P(x) for x = 7

P (5) =

14
= .0412
340

Conclusion
Summary
By comparing the possible paths for a marble to take down a board of nails, we
determined that an sufficiently accurate description of our collected data was the
Gaussian probability distribution.
Specifics
The Gaussian distribution is very close to the graph obtained from the 340 rolls.
At just 50 rolls, the Gaussian distribution did not match the graph of the rolls as
accurately as that of 340 rolls. In order to accurately describe something statistically, a
higher number of trials is necessary. The higher the number the trials, the more
accurate the real results to those theoretical. Even though the graphs obtained from the
small number of trials do not match the Gaussian distribution perfectly, it can be
reasonably said as more trials are conducted, that the graph obtained will match more
closely to that of the Gaussian distribution.
The type of marble used changed our data dramatically. When the glass marble was
used, the bounce from the impact with each nail was only enough to move it directly to
the right or left of the nail - allowing for two possible paths per row of nails it passed
through. With the steel ball, the bounce was much larger and it could jump across two
or three nails. This greatly increased the number of possible paths for the steel ball to
take as it approached the bottom, causing a wider Gaussian distribution.
Error Analysis
After analyzing the data, we found a few things that are possible sources of error, and
should be further investigated.
The value for xavg in every case was not zero. Had the path been truly random and
starting at zero, the xavg would be expected to be zero; however, due to the possibility
that board was not entirely level, and the nails not sticking out perfectly perpendicular to
the board we can expect some error.
Improvement and Further Study
Because we didnt achieve perfect results, there is always room for additional trials and
improvement. Ensuring that the board is completely level and that the all the nails are
perpendicular to the board will help alleviate some of our error. Even further, more trials
will allow for a more accurate representation which would be seen in a closer collected
data graph to that of the Gaussian distribution curve.