Response to Comment on "Pairing and Phase Separation in a Polarized Fermi Gas"

Guthrie B. Partridge,Wenhui Li,Ramsey I. Kamar,Yean-An Liao,Randall G. Hulet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130697

2006-09-28

Abstract:Zwierlein and Ketterle rely on subjective arguments and fail to recognize important differences in physical parameters between our experiment and theirs. We stand by the conclusions of our original report.

Superconductivity,Strongly Correlated Electrons

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper is a response to Zwierlein and Ketterle's comments on previous research. The core issue that the original author Partridge et al. attempted to address was to defend their research conclusions regarding pairing and phase separation phenomena in polarized Fermi gases.

Specifically, Partridge et al. reported the pairing and phase separation phenomena observed in polarized Fermi gases in previous experiments and proposed corresponding conclusions. However, Zwierlein and Ketterle raised doubts, believing that these conclusions might be affected by experimental conditions, such as the anharmonicity of the trap or other mechanisms. In addition, Zwierlein and Ketterle also thought that the data of Partridge et al. were insufficient to support their claims and emphasized the differences between the two experimental results.

Partridge et al. pointed out in their response:

1. **Differences in experimental conditions**: Zwierlein and Ketterle overlooked important differences in physical parameters between the two experiments, such as the aspect ratio and temperature. These differences may lead to different experimental results. For example, different aspect ratios can significantly affect the properties of the system:
\[
\text{Aspect ratio}=\frac{\omega_z}{\omega_r}
\]
where \(\omega_z\) is the oscillation frequency in the \(z\) - direction and \(\omega_r\) is the radial oscillation frequency.

2. **Data support**: Partridge et al. insisted that their experimental data were sufficient to support their conclusions and had excluded the influence of other objective mechanisms (such as trap anharmonicity) on the results.

3. **Distinction between subjective and objective**: They criticized Zwierlein and Ketterle's arguments as being too subjective and failing to fully consider differences in experimental conditions.

In summary, in this response, Partridge et al. mainly addressed how to respond to doubts about their experimental conclusions and defended the validity and reliability of their research by emphasizing differences in experimental conditions.