Linearisation

Based on Chris Doner’s video - full credit to him.

- The process of​ transforming your variables​ in order to go from a curved trend line of data
points in a graph to a straight line of data points in a graph.
- For example, if the curve is exponential, often you can square your independent
variable in order to get a straight line
Example 1

- If you really wanted to know the relationship between the distance that an object falls and
the time it takes to fall. When you plot your graph, it’s curved, so you have to linearise it.
- When looking at the graph, you realise it’s basically a parabola with 0 as the vertex.
- The equation of a parabola is ​y=kx​2​ ​(where k is constant).
- If you do this: ​Let x​2​ = X
- You can replace x​2​ in the formula for your parabola: ​y=kX
- This gives you the equation of a straight line (y=mx) through the origin
Old coordinates x variable X variable y variable New coordinates
(x,y) (X, y)
t t​2 d

(0.2 , 0.2) 0.2 0.2​2 0.2 (0.04 , 0.2)

(0.6 , 0.8) 0.6 0.6​2 1.8 (0.36 , 1.8)

Finding the slope: ​See how it becomes linearised, giving you the direct relationship between
D & t: ​D=4.89t​2​ ​(the slope). Oftentimes, the relationship between the DV and the IV is what you’re
looking for with the experiment.
Relating to important physical constants: ​With a little background information, you can go
even further and relate the slope you found to important physical constants. You might know that
D=(½)gt​2​ ​, and with this you can work with your equation to find that gravity here is g=9.78.
 Calculating uncertainty: ​With a linearised graph, we can also calculate the uncertainty in the
slope. You would draw a minimum slope line and a maximum slope line, then determine the slope
uncertainty.
If we (hypothetically) said that the​ uncertainty in the slope = 0.1​, then we can also say that
the ​uncertainty in g = 0.2. ​Comparing the g you got (9.78) and the accepted constant for g (9.81)
while considering your uncertainty (0.2), you know that your data is within experimental
uncertainty.

Considering the y-intercept: ​Another advantage of having a linearised graph is the possibility
of distinguishing systematic errors. If you expected your linearised graph to pass through the origin
but instead, the y-intercept is at 2 (essentially, a vertical translation of 2 upwards for every single
data point), then you know you have a systematic error. Thus, always ask yourself: Is it within the
experimental uncertainty of the origin? Is there a systematic error?

Example 2
These students knew this was the
equation so they manipulated it slightly
(moved L). Then they could simply
define ​v2​​ =y​ and ​TL=x. ​This gave the
relationship ​y=4.9x+3​ (y=mx+b in the
equation in the graph above). Which
means ​v2​​ =4.9(TL)+3. ​Thus, 1/mass =
4.9, so then you could extrapolate your
mass.

How do you know what to plot to get a linear graph? Sometimes you have a theoretical equation that can
guide you.
Sometimes you can guess from the shape of the graph.
Here are common strategies if you truly have to guess the shape and relationship.

(1/x​2​ is steeper than 1/x)

Exponential is the most overused relationship in physics. Take the time to make sure it is
truly exponential.
When it’s decreasing, your base can be anything between 0 & 1. The slower the decrease,
the bigger you’ll want your base to be.
When it’s increasing, your base can be anything bigger than 1. The slower the increase, the
smaller you’ll want your base to be.
When you have a relationship already, here’s what you can do (if you’re working off a formula:
Example 3

a) Identify independent and dependent variables.

b) Isolate them (other variables should be constants)
c) Your IV becomes x
d) Your DV becomes y
e) The constant in the equation become the slope (k)
Go even further in this case by checking that your g is within experimental uncertainty.
Example 4

Same steps as before gives you y=N​g​y, which is y=mx where m=N​g