SciPost Submission Page
Direct production of fermionic superfluids in a cavity-enhanced optical dipole trap
by Tabea Bühler, Timo Zwettler, Gaia Bolognini, Aurélien Fabre, Victor Helson, Giulia Del Pace, Jean-Philippe Brantut
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Tabea Bühler |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05694v2 (pdf) |
| Data repository: | https://zenodo.org/records/14051599 |
| Date accepted: | 2025-04-08 |
| Date submitted: | 2025-02-14 18:48 |
| Submitted by: | Bühler, Tabea |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
We present the production of quantum degenerate, superfluid gases of 6Li through direct evaporative cooling in a cavity-enhanced optical dipole trap. The entire evaporative cooling process is performed in a trap created by the TEM00 mode of a Fabry-P\'erot cavity, simultaneously driven on several successive longitudinal modes. This leads to near-complete cancellation of the inherent lattice structure along the axial direction of the cavity, as evidenced by the observation of long-lived dipole oscillations of the atomic cloud. We demonstrate the production of molecular Bose-Einstein condensates upon adiabatic conversion of a unitary Fermi gas evaporatively cooled in this trap. The lifetime and heating in the cavity trap are similar to those in a running wave dipole trap. Our system enables the optical production of ultracold samples using a total trap-laser power below 1 W, leveraging the benefits of optical resonators as dipole traps in quantum gas research while maintaining a simple resonator design and minimizing additional experimental complexity.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Author comments upon resubmission
We would like to thank the referees for their reports. We have carefully considered the points raised by both referees and have made revisions to the manuscript accordingly. A detailed response addressing each of these points is provided in our replies to their reports.
Below, we summarize the changes that have been implemented, including those made in response to the referees' suggestions. In addition we have performed a recalibration of the magnetic field in the meantime. As a result, we now provide corrected values for the magnetic field and the interaction parameter in Sec. 3 of the manuscript.
We believe that the referees' comments have contributed to improving our manuscript and that it is now ready for publication.
Sincerely,
The Authors
List of changes
- We added a paragraph in Sec. 2.1 that discusses the stability of the free spectral range of our cavity over the frequency range explored within the scheme presented in this manuscript. The paragraph also discusses potential challenges that may arise in cases where variations of the free spectral range are present.
-We changed the formulation in Sec. 2.3 to clarify that we are measuring oscillation amplitude at a fixed point in time as a proxy for the damping present in the dipole oscillations.
-We added a specification in Sec. 2.1 that CODT1 has orthogonal polarization compared to CODT2.
-We now introduce the symbol V denoting optical potential depth in the main text of the manuscript in Sec. 2.1.
-We changed the format of the footnotes. Stated is the manufacturer of the mentioned device followed by the part number.
-We simplify the phrasing in Sec. 2.1 to clarify that we stabilize the power injected to the cavity for CODT1 and the power transmitted through the cavity for CODT2.
-We change the phrasing in Sec. 2.2 to stress that the optical potential depth is held constant while the magnetic field gradient is raised.
-We added a line break in Sec. 3 to separate the general description of cooling into the superfluid regime from the description of the specific procedure applied in our work. In the second paragraph of Sec. 3 we change the phrasing to increase the clarity of the description of our procedure.
-In Sec. 3 we add a description on how we obtain the bootstrap distribution to generate the error bars. Furthermore we motivate the need for this procedure by stressing that we fit to averaged images.
-In Sec. 3 we add a discussion about the lifetime observed in our experiment and state what we assume are the limiting factors in our case.
-We provide corrected values for the magnetic field and the interaction parameter in Sec. 3 following a recalibration of our magnetic field.
Published as SciPost Phys. 18, 133 (2025)
Reports on this Submission
Report
The points I raised were properly answered, I would suggest publication.
The scope of the paper is a bit narrow, but it's an interesting technical advance in the field.
Recommendation
Publish (meets expectations and criteria for this Journal)