Permittivity (epsilon) change via temperature + optics effect?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between permittivity (epsilon) changes due to temperature and their effects on optical phenomena, specifically the Snell angle. Participants also touch on the fragmentation of physics literature across databases and seek a centralized resource similar to PubMed for applied physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether changes in permittivity due to temperature can be assumed to be proportional and whether this leads to a visible alteration in the Snell angle.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the reliability of AI-generated responses, suggesting that real human input would be more valuable.
  • A third participant challenges the clarity of the initial post, implying that the question was not well-articulated.
  • A later reply indicates that the thread is closed, advising the original poster to reformulate their question without reliance on AI assistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the original question regarding permittivity and its optical effects, and participants express differing views on the clarity and validity of the initial inquiry.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights issues related to the clarity of questions posed in forums and the potential for misunderstanding when AI-generated content is used as a basis for inquiry.

ndvcxk123
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Experiments: freeze binoculars view refraction change, + degassed water under high heat vs. near frozen water refraction change.
I got this from chatgpt:
refrangle.JPG

It says "not simple and straightforward", but can we assume proportional ? So is there a visible alteration in Snell angle ? Also, for applied physics databases, what would be a pubmed equivalent, hosting all titles and synopses ? In physics the articles seem to be fragmented between different databases ?
Thx.
 
Science news on Phys.org
ChatGPT is designed to make up a plausible-sounding answer. Sometimes it is even correct, but you can't count on it.

If you would clearly post your question here, real people can take a shot at answering it.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
If you would clearly post your question here
What, you don't understand this very clear thread start? What in the world is WRONG with you? o0)
 
Upon further review, this thread is closed. OP is advised that they can start a new thread with their question if they do it without using an AI chatbot's "help", and make the thread start understandable.