All of which the physicist can trivially account for, control and variable test around, should the requested question be updated to require it.
The requested question did not include “In all possible scenarios”, thus determining the volume of the sphere via physics calculation at the most average of conditions, is the most correct valid solution, absent further requirement parameters.
But I was responding to:
The physicist’s answer would be correct anywhere, no matter the temperature or density of the fluid.
Which includes non-standard conditions.
This is like saying “the physicist’s answer would have errors because they measured the ball and then stuck it in an oven. The volume of the ball in the oven is different than what they measured.”
Using boiling water is still fine, the measurement will work, your comment literally only is a problem if they don’t measure in time. So yes, it’s exactly like sticking it in an oven and not measuring at the same time
Assuming the time between submersion and observation is greater than zero, increasing temperatures above boiling would give increasing error.
Conversely the physicist may get other error at/near freezing.
And yet another option is the fluid being above the Ball’s melting and/or boiling point, assuming changes in density with phase change.
They just said the ball was red, they didn’t say why…
Responded to inline comment saying any temp would be fine
All of which the physicist can trivially account for, control and variable test around, should the requested question be updated to require it.
The requested question did not include “In all possible scenarios”, thus determining the volume of the sphere via physics calculation at the most average of conditions, is the most correct valid solution, absent further requirement parameters.
You’re right in terms of grading a student’s homework or whatever.
In research/publication/career these assumptions must be stated unless given.
But I was responding to:
Which includes non-standard conditions.
This is like saying “the physicist’s answer would have errors because they measured the ball and then stuck it in an oven. The volume of the ball in the oven is different than what they measured.”
No it’s more like the physicist tried to use boiling water to measure it
Using boiling water is still fine, the measurement will work, your comment literally only is a problem if they don’t measure in time. So yes, it’s exactly like sticking it in an oven and not measuring at the same time
Fair, if you do account for the change in water volume over time then you could maintain accuracy, but also good luck reading the meniscus.