This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Multiple polaron quasiparticles with dipolar fermions in a bilayer geometry

Antonio Tiene Departamento de Física Teórica de la Materia Condensada & Condensed Matter Physics Center (IFIMAC), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid 28049, Spain    Andrés Tamargo Bracho Departamento de Física Teórica de la Materia Condensada & Condensed Matter Physics Center (IFIMAC), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid 28049, Spain    Meera M. Parish School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence in Future Low-Energy Electronics Technologies, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia    Jesper Levinsen School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence in Future Low-Energy Electronics Technologies, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia    Francesca Maria Marchetti Departamento de Física Teórica de la Materia Condensada & Condensed Matter Physics Center (IFIMAC), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid 28049, Spain
Abstract

We study the Fermi polaron problem with dipolar fermions in a bilayer geometry, where a single dipolar particle in one layer interacts with a Fermi sea of dipolar fermions in the other layer. By evaluating the polaron spectrum, we obtain the appearance of a series of attractive branches when the distance between the layers diminishes. We relate these to the appearance of a series of bound two-dipole states when the interlayer dipolar interaction strength increases. By inspecting the orbital angular momentum component of the polaron branches, we observe an interchange of orbital character when system parameters such as the gas density or the interlayer distance are varied. Further, we study the possibility that the lowest energy two-body bound state spontaneously acquires a finite center of mass momentum when the density of fermions exceeds a critical value, and we determine the dominating orbital angular momenta that characterize the pairing. Finally, we propose to use the tunneling rate from and into an auxiliary layer as an experimental probe of the impurity spectral function.

I Introduction

Over the last two decades, significant progress has been made in manipulating ultracold gases of dipolar atoms and molecules. The surge in experimental activity in this field is motivated by the expectation that the anisotropic and long-range nature of dipole-dipole interactions can lead to exotic states of matter Lahaye et al. (2009); Baranov et al. (2012); Chomaz et al. (2022). Significant progress has already been made with dipolar gases of highly magnetic atoms such as Cr Griesmaier et al. (2005); Stuhler et al. (2005), Dy Lu et al. (2011, 2012), and Er Aikawa et al. (2012, 2014a), where the achievement of quantum degeneracy has allowed the investigation of droplets, supersolids and other quantum phenomena Böttcher et al. (2020). However, in order to access the regime of strong dipole-dipole interactions, one requires other cold-atom platforms such as Rydberg atoms Löw et al. (2012) or heteronuclear molecules Moses et al. (2017); Shaffer et al. (2018).

Fermionic polar molecules in layered geometries are particularly promising for realizing quantum phases with strong and tunable dipolar interactions. By confining dipolar molecules to two-dimensional (2D) layers, inelastic losses are suppressed, while the sign and strength of the dipolar interactions can be precisely controlled Valtolina et al. (2020). Degenerate 2D Fermi gases have already been achieved with KRb Marco et al. (2019); Tobias et al. (2020) and NaK Schindewolf et al. (2022); Duda et al. (2023), while other molecules, including LiCs Deiglmayr et al. (2008); Repp et al. (2013) and NaLi Park et al. (2023), are also being explored. Moreover, recent experiments with ultracold KRb molecules have demonstrated the possibility to image and control multiple layers individually Tobias et al. (2022), thus expanding the range of scenarios that can be explored with 2D dipolar gases.

From a theoretical standpoint, dipole-dipole interactions are expected to generate ordered phases of fermions in layered geometries. Of particular interest is the configuration where all dipole moments are aligned perpendicularly to the confining planes, such that the system has rotational symmetry. In the case of a single layer, intralayer superfluid pp-wave pairing can be driven by dressing polar molecules with a microwave field Cooper and Shlyapnikov (2009); Levinsen et al. (2011). Furthermore, density-wave instabilities with dipolar fermions have been proposed Bruun and Taylor (2008); Yamaguchi et al. (2010); Sun et al. (2010), including the spontaneous appearance of a stripe phase Parish and Marchetti (2012) and Wigner crystallization Matveeva and Giorgini (2012) at sufficiently high densities or strong interactions. In the case of bilayers, in addition to density-wave instabilities Marchetti and Parish (2013), new interlayer bound pairs can arise due to the attractive part of the dipolar interaction Klawunn et al. (2010a); Potter et al. (2010); Pikovski et al. (2010); Klawunn et al. (2010b). Such pairing and associated interlayer superfluidity has been studied in the case of both balanced Bruun and Taylor (2008); Pikovski et al. (2010); Mazloom and Abedinpour (2018) and imbalanced populations Mazloom and Abedinpour (2017). The latter includes the possibility of realizing a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) modulated pairing phase Lee et al. (2017). Most notably, the stability of the FFLO state can be enhanced by the long-range character of the interlayer dipolar interaction, where different partial waves contribute to the pairing order parameter.

In this work, we consider the limit of extreme population imbalance for dipolar fermions in a bilayer, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Specifically, we have an impurity problem, where a single dipolar particle in one layer interacts with a Fermi sea of identical dipolar fermions in a different layer. This so-called “Fermi-polaron” problem has previously been considered in Refs. Klawunn and Recati (2013); Matveeva and Giorgini (2013) for the case of dipoles in a bilayer geometry 111The “repulsive Fermi polaron” problem with dipolar fermions in a single layer geometry has been considered in Ref. Bombín et al. (2019)., and the general problem of an impurity in a 2D Fermi gas has been extensively studied in other 2D platforms such as ultracold atoms Zöllner et al. (2011); Parish (2011); Schmidt et al. (2012a); Ngampruetikorn et al. (2012); Parish and Levinsen (2013); Tajima et al. (2021) and doped semiconductors Sidler et al. (2016); Efimkin et al. (2021); Tiene et al. (2022); Huang et al. (2023). Our scenario can be readily realized with polar molecules; however, note that our setup is quite general and could in principle apply to other dipoles such as Rydberg atoms. We consider two possible solutions of this problem. In the first, we generalize the interlayer bound state between two dipoles to include the effects of an inert Fermi sea and how it blocks the occupation below the Fermi momentum. In the second, we consider the possibility of “polaron” quasiparticles, where the impurity is dressed by particle-hole excitations of the Fermi sea. Throughout, we compare our results with those previously obtained within a TT-matrix formalism which focused on the limit of weak dipolar interactions Klawunn and Recati (2013).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the bilayer geometry considered: a Fermi gas of dipoles (such as polar molecules) is confined in the bottom layer σ=1\sigma=1, while a single dipole with the same perpendicular alignment is confined in the layer σ=2\sigma=2, generating an impurity problem where two inter-layer dipoles attract each other at short distances rdr\lesssim d and repel each other at large distances rdr\gtrsim d (see Fig. 2). Tunneling between the two layers is prevented by a barrier (blue filled region between the two layers).

By employing a variational Ansatz, we evaluate the polaron spectrum to reveal that it is characterized by a series of attractive polaron branches, where the number of branches increases when the distance between the two layers decreases or the dipole moment increases. We associate the appearance of these polaron branches to the series of two-body bound states that, similarly to the 2D hydrogen atom Yang et al. (1991), is characterized by a specific orbital angular momentum component and a principal quantum number. In the limit of vanishingly small density of fermions, the attractive polaron energies recover those of the dipole-dipole bound states. By evaluating the orbital angular momentum component of each polaron branch, we observe that the partial wave character of the branches evolve and interchange when we either increase the Fermi density or, at a fixed density, we increase the bilayer distance.

In contrast to the well-studied case of contact impurity-medium interactions Massignan et al. (2014); Scazza et al. (2022), a distinctive feature of finite-range dipole-dipole interactions is that the energy of the lowest energy polaron branch can either redshift, i.e., lower its energy, with increasing Fermi density, or blueshift. We find that this depends on the precise value of the dipolar strength, a quantity related to the specific value of the dipole moment and the layer separation. We explain this qualitative different behavior in terms of the contribution of hole scattering in the polaron formation, which we find is particularly important for the dipolar potential.

Further, we consider the possibility that the lowest dipole-dipole bound state spontaneously acquires a finite center of mass momentum when the density of the Fermi sea increases. Because of the long-range nature of the dipole-dipole interaction, this finite-momentum bound state mixes different orbital angular momentum components. We show that, while for small densities, ss-wave pairing dominates close to the transition, for larger densities, the bound state acquires pp- and dd-wave components. These results agree with those found at finite but large imbalance in Ref. Lee et al. (2017).

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we introduce the model of identical dipolar fermions in a bilayer geometry, and we discuss the relevant length and energy scales including their typical values in current experiments for either strongly magnetic atoms or heteronuclear molecules. Section III describes the properties of the two-body interlayer bound states, generalized to the case where a Fermi gas in one of the layers acts to block the occupation of states below the Fermi sea. In Sec. IV we describe the spectral properties of the Fermi polaron, while in Sec. V we show that the polaron spectral function can be probed analogously to radiofrequency spectroscopy by introducing an auxiliary layer to the system. Conclusions and perspectives are gathered in Sec. VI.

II Model

We investigate the configuration schematically represented in Fig. 1. A Fermi sea of dipoles (e.g., polar molecules) is confined in one layer, with index σ=1\sigma=1, where the dipole moments of the molecules are aligned perpendicularly to the plane by an external field. Additionally, a single dipolar molecule with the same perpendicular alignment occupies layer σ=2\sigma=2. The Hamiltonian describing the systems is (we set =1\hbar=1 and the system area 𝒜=1\mathcal{A}=1):

H^=𝐤,σϵ𝐤c^𝐤,σc^𝐤,σ+𝐤𝐤𝐪V𝐪c^𝐤𝐪,1c^𝐤+𝐪,2c^𝐤,2c^𝐤,1,\hat{H}=\sum_{{\bf k},\sigma}\epsilon_{\bf k}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},\sigma}+\sum_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{\prime}{\bf q}}V_{{\bf q}}\hat{c}_{{\bf k}-{\bf q},1}^{{\dagger}}\hat{c}_{{\bf k}^{\prime}+{\bf q},2}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\bf k}^{\prime},2}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},1}\;, (1)

where c^𝐤,σ\hat{c}_{{\bf k},\sigma}^{{\dagger}} (c^𝐤,σ\hat{c}_{{\bf k},\sigma}) is the creation (annihilation) operator of a fermionic dipole with momentum 𝐤{\bf k} in layer σ\sigma. Dipoles in different layers have the same mass mm and their kinetic energy is ϵ𝐤=k2/2m\epsilon_{\bf k}=k^{2}/2m.

In writing Eq. (1) we have implicitly assumed that the intralayer correlations are weak, such that the gas in layer 11 is in a Fermi liquid phase where it can be treated as approximately non-interacting. This neglects the possibility of density instabilities which can occur in a (perpendicularly alligned) 2D dipolar Fermi gas with large dipole moments or high densities Parish and Marchetti (2012).

On the other hand, the second term in the Hamiltonian (1) describes the dipolar interaction between a molecule in layer 11 and one in layer 22. The interlayer dipolar potentials in real and momentum space are, respectively, given by Pikovski et al. (2010); Li et al. (2010); Klawunn et al. (2010b):

V(𝐫)\displaystyle V({\mathbf{r}}) =D2r22d2(r2+d2)5/2,\displaystyle=D^{2}\frac{r^{2}-2d^{2}}{(r^{2}+d^{2})^{5/2}}\;, (2a)
V𝐪\displaystyle V_{\bf q} =2πD2qeqd,\displaystyle=-2\pi D^{2}qe^{-qd}\;, (2b)

where 𝐫{\mathbf{r}} is the planar separation. Here dd is the layer separation and D2D^{2} is the dipolar interaction strength. Out of these variables it is profitable to introduce a dimensionless dipolar strength

U0\displaystyle U_{0} =mD2d=D2E0d3,\displaystyle=\frac{mD^{2}}{d}=\frac{D^{2}}{E_{0}d^{3}}\;, (3)

where E01/md2E_{0}\equiv 1/md^{2} is the energy scale associated with the layer separation. We see that U0U_{0} increases by either increasing the dipolar interaction strength or by moving the two layers closer to each other.

The interlayer dipolar potential is plotted in Fig. 2 in real and momentum space. As expected, in real space the potential is attractive at short distances rdr\lesssim d, where the dipoles are effectively arranged head-to-tail, while it is repulsive at large distances rdr\gtrsim d, where the dipoles are arranged side-by-side. Note that the interlayer potential has a vanishing zero-momentum contribution, i.e.,

V𝐪=𝟎=𝑑𝐫V(𝐫)=0.V_{{\bf q}={\bf 0}}=\int d{\mathbf{r}}\,V({\mathbf{r}})=0\;.

This implies that the two-dipole bound state becomes very shallow when U00U_{0}\to 0 Klawunn et al. (2010b), as discussed further in Sec. III.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Interlayer dipolar interaction potential, Eq. (2), in real (a) and momentum (b) space.

The dipolar interaction strength D2D^{2}, which has the dimensions of energy times volume, is related to either the permanent magnetic dipole moment μm\mu_{m} of a magnetic atom or to the dipole moment DeD_{e} of an atom or a molecule induced by an electric field Lahaye et al. (2009):

D2={μ04πμm2magnetic14πϵ0De2electric,D^{2}=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\frac{\mu_{0}}{4\pi}\mu_{m}^{2}&\text{magnetic}\\[6.99997pt] \displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}D_{e}^{2}&\text{electric}\end{cases}\;,

where μ0\mu_{0} is the vacuum permeability and ϵ0\epsilon_{0} the vacuum permittivity. Usually heteronuclear molecules with induced electric dipole moments display much stronger dipole-dipole interactions than atoms with a permanent magnetic moment. In order to quantify the dipolar interaction, it is convenient to introduce the dipolar length adda_{dd} Lahaye et al. (2009); Chomaz et al. (2022) 222Note that Refs. Lahaye et al. (2009); Chomaz et al. (2022) use a different definition of CddC_{dd} but the same definition of adda_{dd}: CddLehaye=4πCddChomaz=4πD2=12πaddmC_{dd}^{\text{Lehaye}}=4\pi C_{dd}^{\text{Chomaz}}=4\pi D^{2}=12\pi\frac{a_{dd}}{m}. :

D2=3addm.D^{2}=\displaystyle\frac{3a_{dd}}{m}\;. (4)

For heteronuclear molecules, adda_{dd} can be up to 3 orders of magnitude larger than for magnetic atoms. Typical values of adda_{dd} for the highly magnetic atom 164Dy and for the heteronuclear molecules KRb and LiCs are given in Table 1. Furthermore, in current experiments, typically d500d\simeq 500 nm; however very recently a new super-resolution technique which localizes and arranges dipolar molecules on a sub-5050 nm scale has been implemented Du et al. (2023). The corresponding values of U0U_{0} that can be achieved for both highly magnetic atoms and heteronuclear molecules are listed in Table 1. Throughout this work we consider the dipoles to be structureless fermions such that we do not make a distinction between magnetic atoms or heteronuclear molecules.

add(a0)a_{dd}(a_{0}) U0(d=50nm)U_{0}(d=50~{}\text{nm}) U0(d=500nm)U_{0}(d=500~{}\text{nm}) UFU_{F}
164Dy 130.7 0.4 0.04 0.07
KRb 2×1032\times 10^{3} 6.3 0.6 1.1
LiCs 2×1052\times 10^{5} 634.8 63.5 110
Table 1: Typical values of the dipolar length adda_{dd} in units of the Bohr radius a0=0.0529a_{0}=0.0529 nm for the highly magnetic atom 164Dy Chomaz et al. (2022), and for the heteronuclear molecules KRb Lahaye et al. (2009); Valtolina et al. (2020) and LiCs Carr et al. (2009). The corresponding value of the dimensionless dipolar interaction strength U0U_{0} (3) is given in the second and third column for two different bilayer distances dd. In the fourth column we have UFU_{F} (6) (which is independent of dd) for a typical Fermi gas density n108n\simeq 10^{8} cm-2.

The density nn of dipoles in layer 11 is related to the Fermi momentum kFk_{F} by

kF=4πn.k_{F}=\sqrt{4\pi n}\;. (5)

From this, we can define a many-body dimensionless parameter UFU_{F} analogous to the dipolar strength U0U_{0}:

UF\displaystyle U_{F} =U0kFd=U02EFE0=mD2kF.\displaystyle=U_{0}k_{F}d=U_{0}\sqrt{\displaystyle\frac{2E_{F}}{E_{0}}}=mD^{2}k_{F}\;. (6)

This dimensionless interaction strength characterizes the extent of many-body correlations in the system. As discussed above, we neglect the intralayer interaction and assume an ideal Fermi gas in layer 11. Strictly speaking, this requires us to consider sufficiently small values of UFU_{F} such that there are no ordered phases. Specifically, in the case of perpendicular orientation of the dipole moments, it has been found that the translational symmetry is broken for UF6U_{F}\gtrsim 6 towards the appearances of a stripe phase Parish and Marchetti (2012), while Wigner crystallization can occur for UF25U_{F}\gtrsim 25 Matveeva and Giorgini (2012). Nevertheless, to comprehensively characterize bound-state and polaron properties in the presence of a Fermi gas, we must extend our investigation to higher density values. Therefore, to preserve the assumption of an ideal Fermi gas in layer 11, we will implicitly assume that there is a small but finite temperature that induces the melting of the strongly correlated phases without strongly affecting the impurity physics.

Typically, the density of the 2D Fermi gas in experiments is n108n\simeq 10^{8} cm-2. This leads to values of UFU_{F} listed in the fourth column of Table 1. We furthermore list typical values for the dimensionless parameters EF/E0E_{F}/E_{0} and 1/kFd1/k_{F}d at different bilayer separation dd in Table 2.

d=50d=50 nm d=500d=500 nm
EF/E0E_{F}/E_{0} 0.015 1.6
1/kFd1/k_{F}d 5.7 0.56
Table 2: Values of the dimensionless density parameters EF/E0E_{F}/E_{0} and 1/kFd1/k_{F}d that can be accessed in experiments on dipolar Fermi gases with a bilayer distance dd and a typical density of the Fermi gas n108n\simeq 10^{8} cm-2.

III Dimer states

Due to the attractive part of the dipolar interaction, two dipoles can form an interlayer bound state. In this section, we discuss the properties of this two-body bound (dimer) state, generalized to the case where the Fermi gas in layer 11 is inert and acts to block the occupation below the Fermi momentum kFk_{F}. We thus consider a general two-body state with a center-of-mass momentum 𝐐{\bf Q} described by:

|M2(𝐐)=𝐤>kFη𝐤(𝐐)c^𝐐𝐤,2c^𝐤,1|FS,|M_{2}^{({\bf Q})}\rangle=\sum_{{\bf k}>k_{F}}\eta_{{\bf k}}^{({\bf Q})}\hat{c}_{{\bf Q}-{\bf k},2}^{{\dagger}}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},1}^{{\dagger}}|FS\rangle\;, (7)

where the sum over the relative momenta 𝐤{\bf k} is restricted by Pauli blocking, k>kFk>k_{F}, while |FS𝐪<kFc^𝐪,1|0|FS\rangle\equiv\prod_{{\bf q}<k_{F}}\hat{c}_{{\bf q},1}^{{\dagger}}|0\rangle describes the Fermi sea in layer 1, and η𝐤(𝐐)\eta_{{\bf k}}^{({\bf Q})} is the two-body wavefunction. The energies EE can then be found by solving the corresponding Schrödinger equation:

Eη𝐤(𝐐)=(ϵ𝐤+ϵ𝐐𝐤)η𝐤(𝐐)+𝐤>kFV|𝐤𝐤|η𝐤(𝐐),E\eta_{{\bf k}}^{({\bf Q})}=\left(\epsilon_{{\bf k}}+\epsilon_{{\bf Q}-{\bf k}}\right)\eta_{{\bf k}}^{({\bf Q})}+\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}>k_{F}}V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|}\eta_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^{({\bf Q})}\;, (8)

which can be readily solved by numerical diagonalization.

Before discussing the solution of Eq. (8), it is useful to classify the dimer states according to their orbital angular momentum component. First, if the impurity momentum Q=0Q=0, the system is rotationally symmetric, and angular momentum is a good quantum number. Furthermore, when EF=0E_{F}=0, the center of mass and relative motion decouple, and therefore the energy at finite QQ is simply related to the energy at Q=0Q=0 via E(Q)=E(Q=0)+Q2/4mE^{(Q)}=E^{(Q=0)}+Q^{2}/4m, allowing us to take advantage of the rotational symmetry at Q=0Q=0. The presence of the Fermi sea complicates matters because then the center of mass motion no longer decouples. Thus, for a dimer state where both 𝐐{\bf Q} and EFE_{F} are finite, the system is no longer rotationally invariant and orbital angular momentum is not conserved.

To proceed, we expand the dimer wavefunction as a Fourier series over the orbital angular momentum basis eiφe^{i\ell\varphi}:

η𝐤(𝐐)=ηkφ(Q)=eiφη~k(Q),\eta_{{\bf k}}^{({\bf Q})}=\eta_{k\varphi}^{(Q)}=\sum_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{i\ell\varphi}\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(Q)}\;, (9)

where φ\varphi is the angle between 𝐤{\bf k} and 𝐐{\bf Q}. The dimer Schrödinger equation (8) now reads

Eη~k(Q)=(2ϵ𝐤+ϵ𝐐)η~k(Q)kQ2m(η~k,1(Q)+η~k,+1(Q))+kFdkk2πV~(k,k,)η~k(Q).E\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(Q)}=\left(2\epsilon_{{\bf k}}+\epsilon_{{\bf Q}}\right)\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(Q)}-\displaystyle\frac{kQ}{2m}\left(\tilde{\eta}_{k,\ell-1}^{(Q)}+\tilde{\eta}_{k,\ell+1}^{(Q)}\right)\\ +\int_{k_{F}}^{\infty}\displaystyle\frac{dk^{\prime}\,k^{\prime}}{2\pi}\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell)\tilde{\eta}_{k^{\prime}\ell}^{(Q)}\;. (10)

Here, we have taken the continuum limit, 𝐤d𝐤(2π)2\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}\to\int\frac{d{\bf k}^{\prime}}{(2\pi)^{2}} and decomposed the interlayer potential in the orbital angular momentum basis by using the fact that the potential is diagonal in angular momentum, i.e.,

02πdφ2πdφ2πeiφV|𝐤𝐤|eiφ=δV~(k,k,),\int_{0}^{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{d\varphi^{\prime}}{2\pi}e^{-i\ell\varphi}V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|}e^{i\ell^{\prime}\varphi^{\prime}}\\ =\delta_{\ell\ell^{\prime}}\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell)\;, (11)

where 𝐤=(k,φ){\bf k}=(k,\varphi) and 𝐤=(k,φ){\bf k}^{\prime}=(k^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}). Note that the potential V~(k,k,)\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell) is real.

As expected, Eq. (10) becomes diagonal in \ell when Q=0Q=0 since, in this limit, the orbital angular momentum is a good quantum number. Note also that, because the potential V~(k,k,)\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell) is symmetric under the exchange \ell\mapsto-\ell, the eigenvectors for 0\ell\neq 0 can either be symmetric or antisymmetric solutions:

η~k(±,Q)=η~k(Q)±η~k,(Q)2,\ \tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(\pm,Q)}=\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(Q)}\pm\tilde{\eta}_{k,-\ell}^{(Q)}}{2}\;, (12)

where η~k0(+,Q)=η~k0(Q)\tilde{\eta}_{k0}^{(+,Q)}=\tilde{\eta}_{k0}^{(Q)}, while η~k0(,Q)=0\tilde{\eta}_{k0}^{(-,Q)}=0. In terms of these, the Schrödinger equation reads (0\ell\geq 0):

Eη~k(±,Q)=(2ϵ𝐤+ϵ𝐐)η~k(±,Q)kQ2m(η~k|1|(±,Q)+η~k+1(±,Q))+kFdkk2πV~(k,k,)η~k(±,Q).E\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(\pm,Q)}=\left(2\epsilon_{{\bf k}}+\epsilon_{{\bf Q}}\right)\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(\pm,Q)}-\displaystyle\frac{kQ}{2m}\left(\tilde{\eta}_{k|\ell-1|}^{(\pm,Q)}+\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell+1}^{(\pm,Q)}\right)\\ +\int_{k_{F}}^{\infty}\displaystyle\frac{dk^{\prime}k^{\prime}}{2\pi}\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell)\tilde{\eta}_{k^{\prime}\ell}^{(\pm,Q)}\;. (13)

One can see that the Schrödinger equation (10) now becomes block diagonal using the symmetric and antisymmetric dimer wavefunctions, i.e., the equations for η~k0(Q)\tilde{\eta}_{k0}^{(Q)} and η~k(+,Q)\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(+,Q)} decouple from those for η~k(,Q)\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(-,Q)}, the former l=0l=0 states being in general the lowest energy solutions 333Note that, as mentioned previously, the Schrödinger equation becomes diagonal in \ell when either Q=0Q=0 or EF=0E_{F}=0, such that symmetric and antisymmetric solutions become degenerate..

In the following two subsections, we first analyze the two-body limit, i.e., the limit EF0E_{F}\to 0 where there is a single particle in each of layers 11 and 22, and we study the appearance of additional bound dimer states when the interlayer dipolar strength U0U_{0} increases. Then, in Sec. III.2, we consider the effect of a finite density of fermions in layer 11 and how this can lead to the dimer spontaneously acquiring a finite center of mass momentum.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Energies of the bound-state dimers at EF=0E_{F}=0 and Q=0Q=0 as a function of the dipolar interaction strength U0U_{0}. The energies are labelled with nn\ell, where \ell is the orbital angular momentum (=0\ell=0 is ss-wave, =1\ell=1 is pp-wave, and =2\ell=2 is dd-wave) and nn is the eigenvalue index, where n+1n\geq\ell+1. (a) Vertical (gray) lines are the binding thresholds for the 2p2p, 2s2s, and 3d3d states (see Table 3). The black (dashed) line is the analytical expression (15) for E1sE_{1s} valid for U01U_{0}\gg 1. (b) U0U_{0} dependence of E1sE_{1s} for small values of U0U_{0} and comparison with the analytical expression (14) valid for U01U_{0}\ll 1 (black [dot-dashed]).
2p2p 2s2s 3d3d 3p3p 4f4f 3s3s 4d4d \dots
U0U_{0} 9.29.2 17.817.8 24.724.7 3535 4848 5252 59.559.5 \dots
Table 3: Threshold values of U0U_{0} for the binding of excited dimer states.

III.1 Vacuum dimer

As explained above, in the absence of a Fermi sea in layer 1, the center-of-mass and relative motion decouple. We therefore solve the two-body problem at Q=0Q=0. The dimer states can be labelled by the orbital angular momentum \ell and the eigenvalue index nn (where increasing values of nn indicate larger energies eigenstates), which we assume to be n+1n\geq\ell+1, in analogy with the 2D hydrogenic atom Yang et al. (1991).

We plot in Fig. 3 the energies of the dimer states for increasing values of U0U_{0}, i.e., for either increasing values of the dipole moments D2D^{2} or smaller bilayer distances dd. As expected, the 1s1s state is always bound for U00U_{0}\neq 0, even if it becomes very shallow when U01U_{0}\ll 1, i.e., the binding energy goes exponentially to zero. This has been already analyzed by Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b) and traced back to the fact that the interlayer dipolar potential has a vanishing zero-momentum contribution, in which case one cannot use Landau’s formula for the energy of the bound state E1sexp[4π/𝑑𝐫V(r)]E_{1s}\propto-\exp[4\pi/\int d{\mathbf{r}}\,V(r)]. Instead, Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b) found an approximation for the 1s1s energy when U01U_{0}\ll 1 by employing the Jost function formalism, leading to:

E1sU00E0e8U02[1U0+U024(52+γln2)],{E}_{1s}\operatorname*{\simeq}_{U_{0}\to 0}-E_{0}e^{-\frac{8}{U_{0}^{2}}\left[1-U_{0}+\frac{U_{0}^{2}}{4}\left(\frac{5}{2}+\gamma-\ln 2\right)\right]}\;, (14)

where γ\gamma is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. For large values of U0U_{0}, variational calculations Yudson et al. (1997) show that

E1sU01E0(2U043U02+154).{E}_{1s}\operatorname*{\simeq}_{U_{0}\gg 1}-E_{0}\left(2U_{0}-4\sqrt{\displaystyle\frac{3U_{0}}{2}}+\displaystyle\frac{15}{4}\right)\;. (15)

We see that these perturbative expressions match well with our numerical results in the two limits, as shown in Fig. 3.

In addition to the 1s1s bound state, we find that the interlayer dipolar potential can bind an increasing number of dimer states with increasing U0U_{0}. The corresponding thresholds are indicated as grey vertical lines in Fig. 3 and are listed in Table 3. In order of increasing U0U_{0}, the sequence of additional dimer states that eventually bind is 2p2p, 2s2s, 3d3d, 3p3p, 4f4f, 3s3s, 4d4d, \dots. Note that this order can change when we introduce the effects of Pauli blocking at finite EFE_{F}, even though the orbital angular momentum remains a good quantum number for Q=0Q=0.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Real-space dimer wavefunctions in the case of EF=0E_{F}=0, Eq. (16). We show (a) ηn(r)\eta_{n\ell}(r) and (b) |ηn(r)|2|\eta_{n\ell}(r)|^{2} for U0=30U_{0}=30.

For each bound state with energy En<0E_{n\ell}<0, we evaluate in Fig. 4 the corresponding dimer eigenfunctions in real space,

ηn(r)=ikdk2πJ(kr)η~k(Q=0,n),\eta_{n\ell}(r)=i^{\ell}\int\displaystyle\frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}J_{\ell}(kr)\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(Q=0,n)}\;, (16)

where J(x)J_{\ell}(x) is the Bessel function of the first kind. We find that, at small distances rdr\lesssim d, the dimer wavefunctions can be well approximated as

η1s(r)\displaystyle\eta_{1s}(r) λ1seα1sr2,\displaystyle\simeq\lambda_{1s}e^{-\alpha_{1s}r^{2}}\;, (17a)
η2s(r)\displaystyle\eta_{2s}(r) λ2seα2sr2(1β2sr),\displaystyle\simeq\lambda_{2s}e^{-\alpha_{2s}r^{2}}(1-\beta_{2s}r)\;, (17b)
η2p(r)\displaystyle\eta_{2p}(r) λ2preα2pr2,\displaystyle\simeq\lambda_{2p}re^{-\alpha_{2p}r^{2}}\;, (17c)
η3d(r)\displaystyle\eta_{3d}(r) λ3dr2eα3dr2.\displaystyle\simeq\lambda_{3d}r^{2}e^{-\alpha_{3d}r^{2}}\;. (17d)

This is similar to the hydrogenic atom in 2D Yang et al. (1991), with the difference being that the dipolar potential leads to a stronger confinement to shorter distances than the Coulomb potential, i.e., the wavefunctions are concentrated at r<dr<d.

Apart from the two-body bound states, we might wonder about the scattering properties of the interlayer dipolar potential (2). In particular, one can show Klawunn et al. (2010b) that there is only a very restricted parameter regime of scattering energies EE0E\lesssim E_{0} and values of U01U_{0}\sim 1 where the scattering properties of the dipolar potential recover those of a short-range contact-like attractive potential. This, as also discussed in Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b), is due to the fact that for U0<1U_{0}<1 the potential leads to a very shallow bound 1s1s state, while for U0>1U_{0}>1 there are additional states becoming bound. We discuss these aspects in App. A, where we explicitly evaluate the scattering phase shift within the variable-phase method.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Spontaneous appearance of a finite dimer center-of-mass momentum when increasing the density of fermions in layer 11 for U0=5U_{0}=5. (a) Values of the center-of-mass momentum QminQ_{min} corresponding to the lowest dimer energy. (b) Dimer ground state energy for Q=QminQ=Q_{min} (purple solid line) and Q=0Q=0 (black solid line). The dashed line is the energy of the normal state, EFE_{F}. The (gray) vertical line indicates the threshold for Qmin0Q_{min}\neq 0. (c) Probability (18) that the dimer lowest eigenstate at QminQ_{min} contains an orbital angular momentum component \ell.

III.2 Finite EFE_{F} and finite-QQ dimers

Similarly to the case of other attractive interaction potentials, the dimer ground state spontaneously acquires a finite center-of-mass momentum QminQ_{min} above a threshold density of fermions Parish et al. (2011); Parish and Levinsen (2013); Cotlet et al. (2020); Tiene et al. (2020). Such a dimer state can be regarded as the extreme imbalance limit of the FFLO phase in spin-imbalanced superconductors Fulde and Ferrell (1964); Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1964). Over the last few decades there has been significant interest in studying this inhomogeneous superfluid phase in a variety of physical systems – see, e.g., recent reviews Casalbuoni and Nardulli (2004); Radzihovsky and Sheehy (2010). The possibility of generating such a phase has already been studied in Ref. Lee et al. (2017) for fermionic dipolar molecules in a bilayer geometry with a finite imbalance of layer densities. Here, it was found that, when the imbalance exceeds a critical value, the system undergoes a transition from a uniform interlayer superfluid phase to the FFLO phase and that this phase is enhanced by the long-range character of the interlayer dipolar interaction. Indeed, it has previously been shown that unscreened Coulomb interactions significantly stabilizes the FFLO phase Parish et al. (2011).

In this section, we consider this problem from the perspective of the extremely imbalanced limit, with a single particle in layer 22. We show in Fig. 5 the spontaneous formation of a dimer state with finite center-of-mass momentum for the specific case of U0=5U_{0}=5. In this case, we observe that the 1s1s dimer state has a minimum at Q=0Q=0 for EF0.46E0E_{F}\leq 0.46E_{0}. For larger densities of the Fermi sea in layer 11, the lowest energy solution is for Q=Qmin0Q=Q_{min}\neq 0, with energy E(Qmin)<E(Q=0)E^{(Q_{min})}<E^{(Q=0)}, in which case the orbital angular momentum ceases to be a good quantum number. For the range of EFE_{F} studied in this work (EF6E0E_{F}\lesssim 6E_{0}), we do not observe any unbinding of the finite QQ dimer state, i.e., we find that the dimer energy remains below the energy EFE_{F} of the normal state |N=c^𝟎,2c^𝐤F,1|FS|N\rangle=\hat{c}_{{\bf 0},2}^{{\dagger}}\hat{c}_{{\bf k}_{F},1}^{{\dagger}}|FS\rangle.

As also commented in Ref. Lee et al. (2017), the long-range nature of the dipole-dipole interaction can mix different angular momentum components of the paired state and thus enhance the FFLO regime. We evaluate the probability that the lowest energy dimer eigenstate contains an orbital angular momentum component \ell as

P(Qmin)=kFkdk2π|η~k(n=1,+,Qmin)|2.P_{\ell}^{(Q_{min})}=\int_{k_{F}}^{\infty}\displaystyle\frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}|\tilde{\eta}_{k\ell}^{(n=1,+,Q_{min})}|^{2}\;. (18)

We plot P(Qmin)P_{\ell}^{(Q_{min})} as a function of EFE_{F} in Fig. 5(c). When Q=0Q=0, the lowest energy state is 1s1s because \ell is a good quantum number. However, for EF>0.46E0E_{F}>0.46E_{0} where the lowest dimer state develops a minimum at Qmin0Q_{min}\neq 0, the lowest eigenvalue is characterized by several orbital angular momentum components \ell. As the transition from Q=0Q=0 to finite QminQ_{min} is second order, the ss component (=0\ell=0) dominates close to the transtion. For larger values of EFE_{F}, the dimer state acquires first a pp-wave component (=1\ell=1) and, later, a smaller contribution from the =2\ell=2, as well as >2\ell>2 components.

In the following section, we illustrate how the properties of the ground and excited states of the two-body bound dimers affect the polaron properties, including its spectral function.

IV Polaron

We now analyze the spectral properties of the polaron formed by the dipolar impurity in layer 22 which is dressed by particle-hole excitations of the Fermi sea of dipoles in layer 11. To this end, we employ a variational ansatz Chevy (2006) describing a polaron with zero center-of-mass momentum Q=0Q=0 as the superposition between the bare impurity weighted by the variational parameter ϕ0\phi_{0} and a single particle-hole excitation, described by ϕ𝐤𝐪\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}:

|P3=(ϕ0c^𝟎,2+𝐤𝐪ϕ𝐤𝐪c^𝐪𝐤,2c^𝐤,1c^𝐪,1)|FS.|P_{3}\rangle=\left(\phi_{0}\hat{c}_{{\bf 0},2}^{{\dagger}}+\sum_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{{\bf q}-{\bf k},2}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k},1}\hat{c}_{{\bf q},1}\right)|FS\rangle\;. (19)

Here, we use a notation where 𝐤{\bf k} is the momentum of the particle states (k>kFk>k_{F}) and 𝐪{\bf q} of the hole states (q<kFq<k_{F}). The polaron state is normalized so that 1=|ϕ0|2+𝐤𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪|21=|\phi_{0}|^{2}+\sum_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}|\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}|^{2}.

The variational ansatz in Eq. (19) has previously been successfully employed to describe the impurity problem in different contexts, including ultracold atoms Zöllner et al. (2011); Parish (2011); Schmidt et al. (2012a); Ngampruetikorn et al. (2012); Parish and Levinsen (2013) and doped semiconductors Sidler et al. (2016); Efimkin et al. (2021); Tiene et al. (2022); Huang et al. (2023). In the case of contact interactions, truncating the dressing of the Fermi sea to a single particle-hole excitation has been demonstrated to be an excellent approximation, with an almost exact cancellation of higher order contributions Combescot and Giraud (2008).

Previous work on the dipolar case Klawunn and Recati (2013) employed a TT-matrix approach to evaluate the lowest attractive polaron branch energy, but the entire spectrum of excitations and the important role played by excited dimer states have not previously been considered. Furthermore, we find that there are important qualitative differences between the variational ansatz (19) and the TT-matrix approach. This is unlike the case of a pure contact interaction, where the variational ansatz in Eq. (19) is completely equivalent to the TT-matrix approach within a ladder approximation Combescot et al. (2007). This highlights the important role played by the longer-range parts of the dipolar interaction potential, despite the dipole-dipole interaction formally corresponding to a short-range interaction in the sense that one can define an asymptotic region and an associated 2D scattering length Baranov et al. (2011). We discuss in App. B the precise relation between the ansatz (19) and the TT-matrix approach employed in Ref. Klawunn and Recati (2013).

By minimizing the expectation value P3|(H^E)|P3\langle P_{3}|(\hat{H}-E)|P_{3}\rangle with respect to the variational parameters ϕ0\phi_{0} and ϕ𝐤𝐪\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}, the polaron spectral properties can be found by solving the eigenvalue problem

Eϕ0\displaystyle E\phi_{0} =𝐤,𝐪V|𝐤𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪\displaystyle=\sum_{{\bf k},{\bf q}}V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf q}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}} (20a)
Eϕ𝐤𝐪\displaystyle E\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}} =E𝐤𝐪ϕ𝐤𝐪+V|𝐤𝐪|ϕ0\displaystyle=E_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}+V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf q}|}\phi_{0}
+𝐤V|𝐤𝐤|ϕ𝐤𝐪𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪,\displaystyle+\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}^{\prime}{\bf q}}-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}}\;, (20b)

where E𝐤𝐪=ϵ𝐤ϵ𝐪+ϵ𝐪𝐤E_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}=\epsilon_{{\bf k}}-\epsilon_{{\bf q}}+\epsilon_{{\bf q}-{\bf k}} and where we have omitted the terms that are zero because V𝟎=0V_{\bf 0}=0. The polaron spectral function A(ω)A(\omega) can be evaluated as usual from the impurity Green’s function G(ω)G(\omega) Mahan (2000):

G(ω)\displaystyle G(\omega) =n|ϕ0(n)|2ωE(n)+iη\displaystyle=\sum_{n}\displaystyle\frac{|\phi^{(n)}_{0}|^{2}}{\omega-E^{(n)}+i\eta} (21a)
A(ω)\displaystyle A(\omega) =1πImG(ω).\displaystyle=-\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi}\imaginary G(\omega)\;. (21b)

Similarly to the dimer problem, it is profitable to project the eigenvalue problem (20) onto an eigenbasis of the orbital angular momentum. This simplifies the numerical solution considerably, because we will see that the polaron branches are characterized by a small number of partial waves \ell. Thus, we consider the following Fourier series of the dimer-hole wavefunctions:

ϕkqφ=eiφϕ~kq.\phi_{kq\varphi}=\sum_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{i\ell\varphi}\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}\;.

The eigenvalue equations in (20) now read:

Eϕ0\displaystyle E\phi_{0} =kdk2πqdq2πV~(k,q,)ϕ~kq\displaystyle=\int\frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}\frac{q\,dq}{2\pi}\sum_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}}\tilde{V}(k,q,\ell)\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell} (22a)
Eϕ~kq\displaystyle E\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell} =2ϵ𝐤ϕ~kqkq2m(ϕ~kq1+ϕ~kq+1)\displaystyle=2\epsilon_{\bf k}\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}-\displaystyle\frac{kq}{2m}\left(\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell-1}+\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell+1}\right)
+V~(k,q,)ϕ0+kdk2πV~(k,k,)ϕ~kq\displaystyle+\tilde{V}(k,q,\ell)\phi_{0}+\int\frac{k^{\prime}dk^{\prime}}{2\pi}\tilde{V}(k,k^{\prime},\ell)\tilde{\phi}_{k^{\prime}q\ell}
qdq2πV~(q,q,)ϕ~kq,\displaystyle-\int\frac{q^{\prime}dq^{\prime}}{2\pi}\tilde{V}(q,q^{\prime},\ell)\tilde{\phi}_{kq^{\prime}\ell}\;, (22b)

where we have employed Eq. (11). As for the dimer wavefunction, it is convenient to introduce symmetric and antisymmetric solutions for the exchange \ell\mapsto-\ell:

ϕ~kq(±)=ϕ~kq±ϕ~kq,2,\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(\pm)}=\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}\pm\tilde{\phi}_{kq,-\ell}}{2}\;, (23)

where ϕ~kq0(+)=ϕ~kq0\tilde{\phi}_{kq0}^{(+)}=\tilde{\phi}_{kq0} and ϕ~kq0()=0\tilde{\phi}_{kq0}^{(-)}=0. Restricting to 0\ell\geq 0, the eigenvalue equations become

Eϕ0\displaystyle E\phi_{0} =kdk2πqdq2π0(2δ,0)V~(k,q,)ϕ~kq(+)\displaystyle=\int\frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}\frac{q\,dq}{2\pi}\sum_{\ell\geq 0}(2-\delta_{\ell,0})\tilde{V}(k,q,\ell)\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(+)} (24a)
Eϕ~kq(±)\displaystyle E\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(\pm)} =2ϵ𝐤ϕ~kq(±)kq2m(ϕ~kq|1|(±)+ϕ~kq+1(±))\displaystyle=2\epsilon_{{\bf k}}\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(\pm)}-\frac{kq}{2m}\left(\tilde{\phi}_{kq|\ell-1|}^{(\pm)}+\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell+1}^{(\pm)}\right)
+δ±,+V~(k,q,)ϕ0+dkk2πV(k,k,)ϕkq(±)\displaystyle+\delta_{\pm,+}\tilde{V}(k,q,\ell)\phi_{0}+\int\frac{dk^{\prime}k^{\prime}}{2\pi}V(k,k^{\prime},\ell)\phi_{k^{\prime}q\ell}^{(\pm)}
dqq2πV(q,q,)ϕkq(±).\displaystyle-\int\frac{dq^{\prime}q^{\prime}}{2\pi}V(q,q^{\prime},\ell)\phi_{kq^{\prime}\ell}^{(\pm)}\;. (24b)

We thus find that the equations for symmetric and antisymmetric dimer-hole wavefunctions decouple. Most importantly, the impurity wavefunction ϕ0\phi_{0} only couples to the symmetric dimer-hole wavefunction ϕ~kq(+)\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(+)}. Thus, the antisymmetric solutions will lead to additional eigenvalues for the polaron problem but these will all have zero spectral weight. As such, we can halve the degrees of freedom in the problem by neglecting the antisymmetric sector.

By discretizing the eigenvalue equations on a Gauss-Legendre grid in k(kF,)k\in(k_{F},\infty) and q(0,kF)q\in(0,k_{F}) and including a finite number of values \ell, we numerically diagonalize Eq. (24) to find eigenvalues and eigenvectors and thus evaluate the polaron spectral function according to Eq. (21). We have checked that all our results are numerically converged with respect to the number of points in the momentum grids as well as in the number of \ell values. It is interesting to note that when ω<0\omega<0 we need only very few, around 4, values of \ell to obtain converged results in the considered parameter regime, while to describe the scattering states we find that 99 values of \ell are sufficient.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Polaron spectral properties for U0=5U_{0}=5. (a) Spectral function A(ω)A(\omega) as a function of EFE_{F} and energy. The (black) dashed and dotted lines are the boundaries of the dimer-hole continuum (see text). The broadening has been fixed to η=0.05E0\eta=0.05E_{0}. (b) Evolution of the polaron spectral weights ZZ as a function of EFE_{F} for the attractive (AA) 1s1s branch, its continuum (CC), and the repulsive (RR) branch.

IV.1 Spectral properties

We plot the polaron spectral function as a function of energy and Fermi gas density in Figs. 68, and 10, for three increasing values of U0U_{0}. We see that there are strong qualitative differences between the spectra, which originate from the different numbers and types of dimer bound states. We now go through these in detail.

Let us first discuss the case U0=5U_{0}=5, corresponding to Fig. 6, for which only the 1s1s two-body dimer state is bound (see Fig. 3). The spectrum in Fig. 6(a) is characterized by two polaron branches and a continuum of states. For ω<0\omega<0, the attractive polaron branch recovers the energy of the 1s1s dimer state in the limit EF0E_{F}\to 0, and we thus label it as the 1s1s attractive branch. This resonance is well separated from the continuum, and its energy coincides with the lowest energy-eigenvalue of Eq. (24). The polaron spectrum also exhibits another resonance at ω0\omega\geq 0, the repulsive polaron, which corresponds to a continuum of states rather than being characterized by a single eigenvalue. When EF0E_{F}\to 0, the repulsive polaron recovers the energy of the bare impurity at rest, ω=0\omega=0, while it blueshifts when EFE_{F} increases. Simultaneously, it broadens and loses spectral weight. In between the attractive and repulsive branches is a continuum of states where the hole in the c^𝐪𝐤,2c^𝐤,1c^𝐪,1\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{{\bf q}-{\bf k},2}\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k},1}\hat{c}_{{\bf q},1} complex of the polaron state (19) is unbound, while the dimer is bound. The energy of such a state is that of a dimer with center-of-mass momentum 𝐪{\bf q} and a hole at momentum 𝐪{\bf q}, and hence the boundaries of this dimer-hole continuum are E(q=0)E^{(q=0)} and E(q=kF)EFE^{(q=k_{F})}-E_{F}, respectively, where the energy is computed using  Eq. (12444Note that we only plot the dimer energy at finite center of mass E(q=kF)E^{(q=k_{F})} corresponding to the symmetric states under the exchange \ell\mapsto-\ell in Eq. (12) since these are the only ones with finite spectral weight. Instead, for zero center of mass momentum, symmetric and antisymmetric solution are degenerate in energy.. Both energies recover E1sE_{1s} when EF0E_{F}\to 0, as expected.

A distinctive feature of the spectrum in Fig. 6(a) is that the 1s1s attractive branch blueshifts (increases its energy) as we increase EFE_{F}. This is in contrast to the case of contact interactions Schmidt et al. (2012b); Ngampruetikorn et al. (2012) where the attractive branch always redshifts (lowers its energy) with increasing EFE_{F}. The origin of this qualitatively new feature is that the dipole-dipole scattering can be significant at low momenta [see Fig. 2(b)] and therefore the hole scattering can be strongly enhanced relative to particle scattering despite the reduced phase space. As also discussed in App. B, we can specifically trace the difference to the term 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} in Eq. (20), which is not present in the previous TT-matrix treatment of the dipolar polaron problem Klawunn and Recati (2013). This term is negligible for U02U_{0}\lesssim 2, in which case the 1s1s attractive branch redshifts when EFE_{F} increases, but it becomes important for larger values of U0U_{0}. The change from redshift to blueshift with increasing U0U_{0} is shown in Fig. 7, where we plot the evolution with EFE_{F} of the energy of the 1s1s attractive branch measured from the vacuum dimer energy, E1sE_{1s}.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Energy of the 1s1s attractive branch measured from the ground-state energy of the vacuum dimer state, E1sE_{1s}, as a function of EFE_{F} for different values of U0U_{0}.

Figure 6(b) shows the spectral weight ZZ for each of the branches, which is defined as the area of the spectral function under the corresponding peak. Because the eigenvectors of the polaron problem form a complete basis, the spectral function satisfies the sum rule 𝑑ωA(ω)=1\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega A(\omega)=1, and thus the total spectral weight is always 1 for all interaction strengths and densities. When EF0E_{F}\sim 0, the spectral weight belongs entirely to the repulsive polaron branch, which coincides with the non-interacting impurity. When EFE_{F} increases, we see that ZZ is transferred mostly to the attractive branch, first linearly and then sublinearly. Only a small part of the spectral weight is transferred to the dimer-hole continuum.

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Polaron spectral properties for U0=15U_{0}=15. (a) Dipolar Fermi polaron spectrum as a function of EFE_{F} and energy. The (black) dashed and dotted lines are the boundaries of the 1s1s and 2p2p dimer-hole continua (see text). The broadening has been fixed to η=0.05E0\eta=0.05E_{0}. (b) Evolution of the polaron spectral weights ZZ as a function of EFE_{F} for the attractive (AA) 1s1s and 2p2p branches, their continua (CC), and the polaron repulsive (RR) branch. The vertical gray line indicates when the A 2pA\ 2p branch enters into the continuum at ω=0\omega=0.
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Polaron spectral function as a function of energy for three different values of the Fermi energy EFE_{F} and for U0=15U_{0}=15. Symbols (values on the right yy-axis) are the probabilities P(n)P_{\ell}^{(n)} that the dimer polaron component has a value of the orbital angular momentum equal to =0,1,2\ell=0,1,2 for a given eigenvalue nn (24).

In Fig. 8 we show the case of stronger interactions U0=15U_{0}=15 at which also the dimer state 2pp is bound (see Fig. 3). Now, the impurity spectrum changes qualitatively from the previous case because there are two attractive polaron branches: when EF0E_{F}\to 0, one recovers, as before, the energy of the 1s1s dimer state, E1sE_{1s}, while the second branch recovers the energy of the 2p2p dimer state, E2pE_{2p}. Here, we label the attractive polaron resonances by 1s1s and 2p2p even though their orbital angular momentum components evolve with EFE_{F} and change in character (see below). Both attractive resonances have an associated dimer-hole continuum: as before, the boundaries of these are the energies of the dimer states E(q=0)E^{(q=0)} and E(q=kF)EFE^{(q=k_{F})}-E_{F} 555Note that only for the 1s1s state do we always have E(q=kF)EF<E(q=0)E^{(q=k_{F})}-E_{F}<E^{(q=0)}.. While the 1s1s dimer-hole continuum is higher in energy than the 1s1s attractive branch, we find that this is not necessarily the case for the 2p2p branch, which for EFE0E_{F}\gtrsim E_{0} clearly appears above its dimer-hole continuum (for EF<E0E_{F}<E_{0}, the spectral weight is very small and it is difficult to distinguish it from its dimer-hole continuum). Both the 2p2p attractive branch and the continuum blueshift in energy for increasing EFE_{F} and, eventually, move into the continuum of the q=0q=0 dimer state at ω=0\omega=0.

Figure 8(a) also shows how the spectral weight of the repulsive branch is predominantly transferred to the ss-wave-like attractive branch and how, compared with the case of U0=5U_{0}=5 in Fig. 6, the spectral weight is transferred more slowly because the 1s1s state is deeper bound. As a result, the repulsive branch remains brighter and broadens more slowly for increasing EFE_{F} than in the previous case. This is further analyzed in Fig. 8(b), where we see that the 1s1s attractive branch spectral weight grows linearly with EFE_{F} for small EFE_{F}, while the 2p2p attractive branch spectral weight grows sublinearly and remains very small. Note that, with increasing density, the 2p2p attractive branch enters the continuum (vertical gray line in Fig. 8), in which case the criterion that we employ to evaluate the spectral weight of both the attractive and repulsive branches becomes inapplicable due to the rapid broadening of both modes. In Fig. 8(b), we thus stop plotting their spectral weights at this point.

To gain further insight into the angular momentum structure of the polarons, we can evaluate the probability that the hole in a given dimer-hole eigenstate nn has an orbital angular momentum component \ell Tiene et al. (2022):

P(n)=11|ϕ0|2kdk2πqdq2π|ϕ~kq(+,n)|2.P_{\ell}^{(n)}=\frac{1}{1-|\phi_{0}|^{2}}\int\displaystyle\frac{k\,dk}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{q\,dq}{2\pi}|\tilde{\phi}_{kq\ell}^{(+,n)}|^{2}\;. (25)

Because only the symmetric ++ states (23) have a finite spectral weight, the probability satisfies P(n)=P(n)P_{-\ell}^{(n)}=P_{\ell}^{(n)}. Further, the probability is normalized such that 0P(n)=1\sum_{\ell\geq 0}P_{\ell}^{(n)}=1. In Fig. 9, we plot the polaron spectral function for U0=15U_{0}=15 for different values of EFE_{F} together with the probability P(n)P_{\ell}^{(n)} for =0,1,2\ell=0,1,2 as a function of ω\omega (with the dots corresponding to discrete eigenvalues). One can clearly see that, for EF<E0E_{F}<E_{0}, the eigenvalues nn corresponding to the 1s1s attractive branch and its continuum are predominantly ss-wave, i.e., P0(n)1P_{0}^{(n)}\sim 1, while P>0(n)0P_{\ell>0}^{(n)}\sim 0, and the eigenvalues nn corresponding to the 2p2p attractive branch and its continuum are predominantly pp-wave, i.e. P1(n)1P_{1}^{(n)}\sim 1, while P1(n)0P_{\ell\neq 1}^{(n)}\sim 0. However, for larger values of EFE_{F}, there is an evolution of these probabilities, where the 1s1s branch acquires a pp-wave component, while the 2p2p branch acquires both ss- and dd-wave components. As far as the dimer-hole continuum is concerned, as already discussed in Sec. III, the dimer state at zero center of mass corresponds to a single value of the orbital angular momentum \ell. This can be clearly seen in Fig. 9, where we recognize the energies of the dimer at zero center of mass E(q=0)E^{(q=0)} limiting the dimer-hole continua, as those having Pn=1P_{\ell}^{n}=1, with either =0\ell=0 or =1\ell=1. However, for the other boundary of the dimer-hole continua, E(q=kF)EFE^{(q=k_{F})}-E_{F}, the dimer state at finite center-of-mass momentum is generally not an eigenstate of the orbital angular momentum and involves a mixture of \ell values that evolve with EFE_{F}.

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Polaron spectral properties for U0=24U_{0}=24. (a) Dipolar Fermi polaron spectrum as a function of EFE_{F} and energy. The (black) dashed and dotted lines are the boundaries of the 1s1s, 2p2p, and 2s2s dimer-hole continua (see text). The broadening has been fixed to η=0.05E0\eta=0.05E_{0}. (b) Evolution of the polaron spectral weights ZZ as a function of EFE_{F} for the attractive (AA) 1s1s, 2p2p, and 2s2s branches, their continua (CC), and the polaron repulsive (RR) branch. The vertical gray line indicates when the A 2sA\ 2s branch enters into the continuum at ω=0\omega=0.
Refer to caption
Figure 11: Growth rate of the spectral weight at small densities α=dZ/d(EF/E0)EF=0\alpha=dZ/d(E_{F}/E_{0})_{E_{F}=0} of the 1s1s and 2s2s attractive (A) branches and of the 1s1s continuum (C) as a function of the dipolar interaction strength U0U_{0}. The (gray) vertical lines indicates the binding threshold for the 2s2s state U02s17.8U_{02s}\simeq 17.8 (see Fig. 3).

In Fig. 10 we plot the spectrum for strong dipolar interactions, U0=24U_{0}=24, for which also the 2s2s dimer state becomes bound. Here, the repulsive branch very quickly transfers its spectral weight to the nearby 2s2s attractive branch — see Fig. 10(b). The behavior of the 2p2p attractive branch is very similar to the case U0=15U_{0}=15 analyzed previously. On the other hand, the 1s1s attractive branch now becomes deeply bound and, differently from before, it is the associated dimer-hole continuum that gains spectral weight first, with the 1s1s attractive branch only overcoming the spectral weight of the dimer-hole continuum for EFE0E_{F}\gtrsim E_{0}.

The strong distinction between the growth rate of the 1s1s state in the presence and absence of the 2s2s state leads us to define the spectral weight growth rate at small EFE_{F}, α=dZ/d(EF/E0)|EF=0\alpha=dZ/d(E_{F}/E_{0})|_{E_{F}=0}. We show the results for the 1s1s and 2s2s attractive branches in Fig. 11 as a function of U0U_{0}. While for U0<17.8U_{0}<17.8, the 1s1s attractive branch spectral weight grows linearly with EFE_{F}, when the 2s2s attractive branch appears for U0>17.8U_{0}>17.8, the 1s1s attractive branch spectral weight grows sublinearly and it is instead the spectral weight of its continuum that grows linearly with EFE_{F}.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: Probability P(n)P_{\ell}^{(n)} that the dimer polaron component has a value of the orbital angular momentum equal to =0,1,2\ell=0,1,2 for those eigenvalue indices nn corresponding to the attractive 1s1s (a), 2p2p (b), and 2s2s (c) branches. The vertical (gray) line in panel (b) indicates when the A 2pA\ 2p branch enters the continuum for U0=15U_{0}=15 (see Fig. 8), and the one in panel (c) when the A 2sA\ 2s branch enters the continuum for U0=24U_{0}=24 (see Fig. 10).

In Fig. 12, we plot the evolution of the probability P(n)P_{\ell}^{(n)} defined in Eq. (25) as a function of EFE_{F} for those eigenvalues nn that correspond to the 1s1s, 2p2p, and 2s2s attractive branches, for the three different values of U0U_{0} that correspond to Figs. 68, and 10, respectively. We see that the 1s1s attractive branch orbital character is predominantly ss-wave at low density, as expected, before becoming more pp-wave with increasing EFE_{F}. However, for the attractive 2p2p branch, even though the pp-wave character dominates over the entire EFE_{F} interval studied, there is an exchange with both ss- and dd-wave components when EFE_{F} increases. Finally, the 2s2s attractive branch quickly loses its ss-wave character towards both the pp- and dd-wave components, before merging with the continuum at ω>0\omega>0. We can in general see that, as U0U_{0} increases, the exchange of angular momentum components is slower due to the attractive branches moving further apart in energy.

Finally, we note that an alternative way of presenting the polaron spectral properties is one where energy scales are rescaled by EFE_{F} and length scales by 1/kF1/k_{F}. In this case, we fix the dipolar interaction parameter UFU_{F} (6) and study the polaron spectrum by varying an additional dimensionless parameter, such as E0/EFE_{0}/E_{F} or 1/kFd1/k_{F}d:

1kFd=E02EF=U0UF.\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_{F}d}=\sqrt{\displaystyle\frac{E_{0}}{2E_{F}}}=\frac{U_{0}}{U_{F}}\;.
Refer to caption
Figure 13: Polaron spectral properties for UF=152U_{F}=15\sqrt{2}. (a) Dipolar Fermi polaron spectrum as a function of 1/kFd1/k_{F}d and energy. The (black) dotted lines are the dimer energies at zero momentum, E(q=0)E^{(q=0)}, from the 1s1s state up to the 4d4d one — unbinding of the zero-momentum dimer occurs at ω=2EF\omega=2E_{F} (horizontal dotted line). The broadening has been fixed to η=0.05×2EF\eta=0.05\times 2E_{F}. Panels (b-d) are the spectral functions at ω=40×2EF\omega=-40\times 2E_{F} as a function of 1/kFd1/k_{F}d and the color maps are the fractions of the spectral function with angular momentum \ell, A(ω)/A(ω)A_{\ell}(\omega)/A(\omega) (26) for =0,1,2\ell=0,1,2.

We plot in Fig. 13 the impurity spectral function obtained by fixing UFU_{F} and increasing 1/kFd1/k_{F}d. In the units previously employed, this corresponds to simultaneously increasing U0U_{0} and decreasing EF/E0E_{F}/E_{0}, which we see leads to the binding of an increasing number of dimer states. As shown in Fig. 13(a), the branches with stronger spectral weight are those associated with the ss-wave dimer states. In panels (b), (c), and (d) of Fig. 13 we plot the spectral function at a fixed value of energy ω<0\omega<0 as a function of 1/kFd1/k_{F}d. As a color map, we plot the fraction of the spectral function with angular momentum \ell, defined as the ratio between the angular momentum weighted spectral function

A(ω)=1πIm[nP(n)|ϕ0(n)|2ωE(n)+iη],A_{\ell}(\omega)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\imaginary\left[\sum_{n}\displaystyle\frac{P_{\ell}^{(n)}|\phi^{(n)}_{0}|^{2}}{\omega-E^{(n)}+i\eta}\right]\;, (26)

and A(ω)A(\omega) — note that 0A(ω)=A(ω)\sum_{\ell\geq 0}A_{\ell}(\omega)=A(\omega). This allows us to identify the dominant orbital angular momentum component \ell of each attractive branch, which we see is strongly correlated with the angular momentum of the corresponding bound dimer state.

Making use of these units, we compare in Fig. 14 the results for the energy of the 1s1s attractive branch obtained within the polaron Ansatz (19) with those obtained in Ref. Matveeva and Giorgini (2013) by quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods for different values of UFU_{F}. For UF=0.5U_{F}=0.5, there is excellent agreement between the two theories for any value of kFdk_{F}d, suggesting that, within this regime, disregarding intralayer interactions is a reliable approximation. For larger values of UFU_{F}, perfect agreement is observed only at small kFdk_{F}d values, where the polaron energy closely matches that of the vacuum dimer state. For increasing kFdk_{F}d values, where layer 11 approaches the transition to a broken symmetry phase Parish and Marchetti (2012); Matveeva and Giorgini (2012), we find that deviations increase, although the qualitative behavior remains similar.

Refer to caption
Figure 14: Energy of the 1s1s attractive branch evaluated as a function of kFdk_{F}d for different values of UFU_{F} (solid lines). We compare our results with those obtained in Ref. Matveeva and Giorgini (2013) by QMC methods (symbols) and with the energy of the vacuum dimer state E1sE_{1s} (dotted lines).

V Tunneling rate and impurity spectral function

We now discuss how one can experimentally probe the spectral function. Our proposal is inspired by radiofrequency spectroscopy Punk and Zwerger (2007), where one can inject (eject) the impurity by driving transitions from (to) an auxiliary hyperfine state that, in the ideal case, does not interact with the medium. Similarly, we suggest to use an auxiliary layer (σ=3\sigma=3) that the impurity can tunnel into/from — see Fig. 15. We furthermore assume that interactions between the dipolar particles can occur only between layers 11 and 22, while tunneling can only occur between layers 22 and 33. This situation can, e.g., be achieved if a potential barrier is present between layers 11 and 22, while layer 33 is further away from both layers. We also note that, in practice, a small 1-3 interaction can be taken into account by considering the initial state to be a weakly dressed attractive polaron, similarly to what is routinely done in the case of RF spectroscopy for contact interactions, see, e.g., Ref. Baym et al. (2007).

We thus have to extend the Hamiltonian (1) to include two additional terms, H^3\hat{H}_{3} and H^t\hat{H}_{t}, that describe, respectively, the kinetic energy of the particles in layer 33, and the tunneling between layers 2 and 33:

H^3\displaystyle\hat{H}_{3} =𝐤(ϵ𝐤+Δ)c^𝐤,3c^𝐤,3\displaystyle=\sum_{\bf k}(\epsilon_{\bf k}+\Delta)\hat{c}_{{\bf k},3}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},3} (27a)
H^t\displaystyle\hat{H}_{t} =t𝐤c^𝐤,3c^𝐤,2+h.c..\displaystyle=t\sum_{\bf k}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},3}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\bf k},2}+\text{h.c.}\;. (27b)

Note that in the kinetic term H^3\hat{H}_{3} we have included a “detuning” energy Δ\Delta, which represents the difference between the energy minima of the confining potentials in the zz-direction.

The additional terms in the Hamiltonian exactly match those used in radiofrequency spectroscopy on impurities Liu et al. (2020), where Δ\Delta plays the role of the radiofrequency detuning, and tt the role of the Rabi coupling. Therefore, this auxiliary layer provides access to the spectral properties. To be specific, within linear response the tunneling rate can be evaluated using Fermi’s golden rule between an initial state consisting of one particle in layer 33 plus a Fermi sea of dipoles in layer 11, c^𝟎,3|FS\hat{c}_{{\bf 0},3}^{\dagger}|FS\rangle, while the final state is the polaron state |P3|P_{3}\rangle (19). This gives

Γ32(Δ)=2πt2n|P3(n)|c^𝟎,2|FS|2δ(ΔE(n))=2πt21πImG(Δ)=2πt2A(Δ).\Gamma_{3\mapsto 2}(\Delta)=2\pi t^{2}\sum_{n}|\langle P_{3}^{(n)}|\hat{c}_{{\bf 0},2}^{{\dagger}}|FS\rangle|^{2}\delta(\Delta-E^{(n)})\\ =-2\pi t^{2}\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi}\imaginary G(\Delta)=2\pi t^{2}A(\Delta)\;. (28)

Thus, measuring the tunneling rate as a function of the energy difference Δ\Delta between the two lowest eigenenergies of the zz-confining lattice potentials is equivalent to measuring the polaron spectral function A(ω)A(\omega) (21b) evaluated in this work.

Refer to caption
Figure 15: Illustration of how the impurity spectral function can be probed via tunneling from an auxiliary distant layer σ=3\sigma=3 to the impurity layer σ=2\sigma=2. Tunneling is suppressed between layers 11 and 22 by a barrier (blue filled region).

VI Conclusions and perspectives

In this work we have studied a gas of dipolar fermions in a bilayer geometry in the limit of extreme imbalance, i.e., a single dipole in one layer interacting with a Fermi sea of dipoles in a different layer. We analyze two different yet connected solutions of this problem. We first investigate the properties of the interlayer dimer bound state, generalized to include the Pauli blocking effect from the inert Fermi sea. We find a series of bound states, characterized by the orbital angular momentum and the principal quantum number, binding for increasing dipolar interaction strength or decreasing bilayer distance. For the dimer ground state, we determine the spontaneous emergence of a finite center of mass momentum when increasing EFE_{F} above a threshold value. The finite momentum dimer corresponds to the large imbalance limit of the FFLO state studied in Ref. Lee et al. (2017). We find that this state has a mixed partial wave character, including ss-, pp-, and dd-wave contributions.

The other solution we analyze is the many-body polaron state, where the presence of the impurity in one layer leads to particle-hole excitations of the Fermi sea in the other layer. We derive the polaron spectral properties by employing a single particle-hole variational ansatz, and we propose that the tunneling rate of the impurity from an additional auxiliary layer can be employed to experimentally access the spectrum. We find that the polaron spectrum is characterized by a series of attractive polaron branches which we trace back to the dimer bound states. At small EFE_{F}, the polaron energies and their orbital character recover those of the dimer states. However, both energies and orbital angular momentum components evolve and interchange with EFE_{F}. We find that the energy of the ground-state 1s1s polaron branch evolves with EFE_{F} in a qualitative different way depending on the value of U0U_{0}. We explain this distinctive property of finite-range dipole-dipole interactions in terms of whether hole scattering is negligible or not in the polaron formation. We characterize the transfer of oscillator strength from the repulsive branch to the series of attractive branches in terms of their partial wave character and their distance in energy from the repulsive branch.

In our model, we neglect the repulsive interactions between particles in the Fermi sea. As such, we neglect the possibility of strong intralayer correlations that could lead, at very low temperatures, to the spontaneous appearance of density modulated phases such as stripes Parish and Marchetti (2012) and Wigner crystals Matveeva and Giorgini (2012), which are predicted to occur for either strong enough dipolar interactions or large enough Fermi densities. While beyond the scope of our study, an exciting perspective of our work is the generalization of the polaron formalism to include the possibility of the impurity interacting with such strongly correlated phases Matveeva and Giorgini (2013), which could potentially leave signatures in the polaron spectral response. Indeed, this would mirror very recent experiments on exciton polarons in doped 2D semiconductor monolayers which have probed strongly correlated states of 2D electron gases, such as Wigner crystals Smoleński et al. (2021); Shimazaki et al. (2021), fractional quantum Hall states in proximal graphene layers Popert et al. (2022) and correlated-Mott states of electrons in a moiré superlattice Schwartz et al. (2021).

Another interesting perspective of our work would involve considering a configuration where the alignment of the dipoles is tilted at a slight angle relative to the normal direction. In this case, the anisotropy induced by the dipole-dipole interaction results in a distorted Fermi surface Bruun and Taylor (2008); Yamaguchi et al. (2010), consequently influencing the properties of the Fermi polaron and giving rise to spatial anisotropies, as illustrated in a three-dimensional setup by Ref. Nishimura et al. (2021). Indeed, deformations of the Fermi surface have already been experimentally observed in a three-dimensional degenerate dipolar Fermi gas composed of Er atoms Aikawa et al. (2014b). Furthermore, a tilted configuration is expected to stabilize the FFLO state (see, e.g., Ref. Kawamura and Ohashi (2022)) since it breaks the continuous rotational symmetry and thus suppresses the pairing fluctuations that destroy FFLO long-range order Shimahara (1998).

The research data underpinning this publication can be accessed at Ref. Tiene et al. (2024).

Acknowledgements.
We would like to thank Stefano Giorgini for fruitful discussions and for letting us use the data from Ref. Matveeva and Giorgini (2013). AT and FMM acknowledge financial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN), project No. AEI/10.13039/501100011033 PID2020-113415RB-C22 (2DEnLight). FMM acknowledges financial support from the Proyecto Sinérgico CAM 2020 Y2020/TCS-6545 (NanoQuCo-CM). JL and MMP are supported through Australian Research Council Future Fellowships FT160100244 and FT200100619, respectively. JL and MMP also acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Future Low-Energy Electronics Technologies (CE170100039).
Refer to caption
Figure 16: Phase shift δ0(k)\delta_{0}(k) as a function of momentum for different values of U0U_{0}. Numerical solutions obtained with the variable-phase method (solid) are compared with the analytical expression (30) derived in Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b) (symbols) and the universal low-energy expression (31) (dashed).

Appendix A Scattering phase shift

In this appendix we evaluate the ss-wave energy-dependent scattering phase shift δ0(k)\delta_{0}(k), where E=k2/2μ=k2/mE=k^{2}/2\mu=k^{2}/m, with μ=m/2\mu=m/2 being the reduced mass. We use the variable-phase method Morse and Allis (1933) which allows us to evaluate the phase shift produced by a potential that vanishes for all r>Rr>R, i.e., we define VR(r)=V(r)Θ(Rr)V_{R}(r)=V(r)\Theta(R-r). In this sense, the phase shift δ(R)\delta_{\ell}(R) can be viewed as the accumulated phase shift at position RR in the true potential V(r)V(r). In 2D, δ(R)\delta_{\ell}(R) satisfies the following first-order, non-linear differential equation Portnoi and Galbraith (1997):

dδ(R)dR=π22μV(R)R×[J(kR)cosδ(R)Y(kR)sinδ(R)]2,\displaystyle\frac{d\delta_{\ell}(R)}{dR}=-\frac{\pi}{2}2\mu V(R)R\\ \times\left[J_{\ell}(kR)\cos\delta_{\ell}(R)-Y_{\ell}(kR)\sin\delta_{\ell}(R)\right]^{2}\;, (29)

with boundary condition δ(0)=0\delta_{\ell}(0)=0. In this expression, J(x)J_{\ell}(x) and Y(x)Y_{\ell}(x) are Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, respectively (the latter are also called Neumann functions), and \ell is again the orbital angular momentum. Thus, for ss-wave, =0\ell=0. Finally, the scattering phase shift in the true potential V(r)V(r) is given by the limit δ(k)=limRδ(R)\delta_{\ell}(k)=\lim_{R\to\infty}\delta_{\ell}(R), and it is a function of the scattering energy through the momentum kk in Eq. (29).

The scattering phase shift for the interlayer dipolar potential (2a) has been previously evaluated in Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b), where the following approximate analytical expression for the ss-wave scattering phase shift was obtained for small values of U0U_{0}:

tanδ0(k)π2IJJ(k)π24[IJJJY(k)IJYJJ(k)]1π2IJY(k)π24[IJJYY(k)12IJY2(k)],\tan\delta_{0}(k)\simeq\displaystyle\frac{-\frac{\pi}{2}I_{JJ}(k)-\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}[I_{JJJY}(k)-I_{JYJJ}(k)]}{1-\frac{\pi}{2}I_{JY}(k)-\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}[I_{JJYY}(k)-\frac{1}{2}I_{JY}^{2}(k)]}\;, (30)

where JJ0(x)J\mapsto J_{0}(x), YY0(x)Y\mapsto Y_{0}(x), and

IFG(k)\displaystyle I_{FG}(k) =0𝑑rrV(r)F(kr)G(kr)\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{\infty}dr\,rV(r)F(kr)G(kr)
IFGPQ(k)\displaystyle I_{FGPQ}(k) =0𝑑rrV(r)F(kr)G(kr)\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{\infty}dr\,rV(r)F(kr)G(kr)
×rdssV(s)P(ks)Q(ks).\displaystyle\times\int_{r}^{\infty}ds\,sV(s)P(ks)Q(ks)\;.

Using Eq. (14), a small-kk expansion of this expression allows us to recover the universal low-energy expression of the phase shift for a short-range potential with a dimer state with binding energy |E1s||E_{1s}|:

cotδ0(k)=1πln(k2/2μ|E1s|).\cot\delta_{0}(k)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi}\ln\left(\displaystyle\frac{k^{2}/2\mu}{|E_{1s}|}\right)\;. (31)

We note that this is the true phase shift for a contact potential; however other potentials will generally have corrections of O(k2)O(k^{2}) Levinsen and Parish (2015).

In Fig. 16 we compare the numerical results for the scattering phase shift obtained by solving Eq. (29) with the approximation (30) derived in Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b) and the universal low-energy expression in Eq. (31). While we see that Eq. (30) is a good approximation for values of U02U_{0}\lesssim 2, the phase shift for a contact potential is a good approximation only when kd1kd\lesssim 1 and U01U_{0}\sim 1. For U0<0.6U_{0}<0.6, as also argued by Ref. Klawunn et al. (2010b), the binding energy of the 1s1s state becomes anomalously small and thus the expression (31) cannot, in practice, be considered the leading term for the low-energy scattering. However, when U02U_{0}\gtrsim 2, both approximations become increasingly inaccurate since then there are other dimer states that are close to becoming bound.

Appendix B Relation between TT-matrix approach and the variational ansatz

We now discuss the relationship between the TT-matrix approach used to obtain the lowest energy attractive polaron branch in Ref. Klawunn and Recati (2013) and the variational ansatz (19) that we employ in this work.

For a finite-range scattering potential V𝐩V_{{\bf p}}, the TT matrix describes the scattering between an incoming impurity with momentum 𝐐{\bf Q} and a bath fermion with momentum 𝐪{\bf q} which are exchanging a momentum 𝐩{\bf p}. By using a diagrammatic expansion within the ladder approximation (see Fig. 17(a)), all terms can be re-summed to give an implicit equation for the TT matrix. Considering, for simplicity, the case of an impurity with zero momentum Q=0Q=0, one obtains the following implicit equation for the TT matrix:

𝒯𝐪𝐩(E)=Vp+𝐩(1f𝐪+𝐩)V|𝐩𝐩|𝒯𝐪𝐩(E)E+ϵ𝐪ϵ𝐩ϵ𝐪+𝐩.\mathcal{T}_{{\bf q}{\bf p}}(E)=V_{p}+\sum_{{\bf p}^{\prime}}\displaystyle\frac{(1-f_{{\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime}})V_{|{\bf p}-{\bf p}^{\prime}|}\mathcal{T}_{{\bf q}{\bf p}^{\prime}}(E)}{E+\epsilon_{\bf q}-\epsilon_{{\bf p}^{\prime}}-\epsilon_{{\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime}}}\;. (32)

Here, f𝐤f_{\bf k} is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, i.e., at zero temperature f𝐤=Θ(kFk)f_{\bf k}=\Theta(k_{F}-k), and E+ϵ𝐪E+\epsilon_{\bf q} is the initial energy of the scattering process.

Refer to caption
Figure 17: (a) Ladder diagrams for the TT matrix describing the scattering between an impurity with momentum 𝐐{\bf Q} and a particle of the bath with momentum 𝐪{\bf q}, which are exchanging a momentum 𝐩{\bf p}. (b) Impurity self-energy in terms of the TT-matrix.
Refer to caption
Figure 18: Polaron properties evaluated in three different ways: (1) by solving the polaron eigenvalue problem (20) (full variational ansatz), (2) by neglecting the 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} term describing the scattering with holes (reduced variational ansatz), and (3) by solving the TT-matrix equation (32) by inversion. (a,b) Energy of the polaron 1s1s attractive branch for (a) U0=5U_{0}=5 as a function of EFE_{F} and (b) EF=E0E_{F}=E_{0} as a function of U0U_{0}. (c) Entire polaron spectrum as a function of ω\omega for EF=E0E_{F}=E_{0} and U0=5U_{0}=5.

Starting from the TT matrix, one can evaluate the entire polaron spectrum by evaluating the impurity Green’s function in terms of the self-energy — see Fig. 17(b):

G(ω)\displaystyle G(\omega) =1ωΣ(ω),\displaystyle=\displaystyle\frac{1}{\omega-\Sigma(\omega)}\;, (33a)
Σ(ω)\displaystyle\Sigma(\omega) =𝐪f𝐪𝒯𝐪,𝐩=𝟎(ω+iη).\displaystyle=\sum_{{\bf q}}f_{{\bf q}}\mathcal{T}_{{\bf q},{\bf p}={\bf 0}}(\omega+i\eta)\;. (33b)

The spectral function is then obtained from the Green’s function as in Eq. (21b).

The TT matrix can also be obtained directly from the polaron eigenvalue equations (20). Defining

𝒮𝐤𝐪(E)(EE𝐤𝐪)ϕ𝐤𝐪ϕ0,\mathcal{S}_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}(E)\equiv(E-E_{{\bf k}{\bf q}})\frac{\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}}{\phi_{0}}\;, (34)

Eq. (20b) becomes

𝒮𝐤𝐪(E)=V|𝐤𝐪|+𝐤(1f𝐤)V|𝐤𝐤|𝒮𝐤𝐪(E)EE𝐤𝐪𝐪f𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|𝒮𝐤𝐪(E)EE𝐤𝐪.\mathcal{S}_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}(E)=V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf q}|}+\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}(1-f_{{\bf k}^{\prime}})V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|}\frac{\mathcal{S}_{{\bf k}^{\prime}{\bf q}}(E)}{E-E_{{\bf k}^{\prime}{\bf q}}}\\ -\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}f_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\frac{\mathcal{S}_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}}(E)}{E-E_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}}}\;. (35)

If one neglects the last term, this equation coincides with Eq. (32) by changing variable 𝐤=𝐪+𝐩{\bf k}^{\prime}={\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime} and redefining

𝒮𝐪+𝐩,𝐪(E)=𝒯𝐪𝐩(E).\mathcal{S}_{{\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime},{\bf q}}(E)=\mathcal{T}_{{\bf q}{\bf p}^{\prime}}(E)\;. (36)

The last term in Eq. (35) describes the scattering of the impurity with a hole of the fermionic bath and corresponds to the 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} term in the polaron eigenvalue equations (20). For a contact interaction potential, the terms 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} can be safely neglected Chevy (2006) because the phase space for hole scattering is small. However, this is not always true for a longer-range potential such as the interlayer dipolar potential.

In order to show this, we plot in Fig. 18 the lowest polaron energy as well as the entire polaron spectrum, comparing the results of three methods: (1) by solving the polaron eigenvalue problem (20), (2) by neglecting the term 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} in Eq. (20), and (3) by numerically solving the TT-matrix equation (32) (see below). Methods (2) and (3) give exactly the same results, as they should. However, there is a non-negligible shift compared with the results obtained with method (1) if either EFE_{F} is large, EFE0E_{F}\gg E_{0}, or if U0>1U_{0}>1. This coincides with the regime where the interlayer dipolar potential gives a very different scattering phase shift to that of the contact potential — see App. A. In particular, the solution of the full problem without neglecting the 𝐪V|𝐪𝐪|ϕ𝐤𝐪-\sum_{{\bf q}^{\prime}}V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}\phi_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}} term is always blueshifted in energy compared to the case where one neglects the scattering of the impurity with the holes in the Fermi sea. This shift increases both as a function of U0U_{0} and EFE_{F}. If U0U_{0} is large, U0>1U_{0}>1, as in Fig. 18, then the overall redshift of the 1s1s attractive polaron branch as a function of EFE_{F} can be changed into a blueshift.

To numerically solve for the TT matrix, we can assume that it depends only on a single angle, the one between 𝐪{\bf q} and 𝐩{\bf p} (ss-wave ansatz), so that the implicit equation (32) can be easily solved by direct inversion. If we define vector indices by i=(p,φ)i=(p,\varphi) and i=(p,φ)i^{\prime}=(p^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}), the TT matrix becomes

𝒯i(E,q)=i[𝕀𝕂(E,q)]ii1Vi,\mathcal{T}_{i}(E,q)=\sum_{i^{\prime}}\left[\mathbb{I}-\mathbb{K}(E,q)\right]^{-1}_{ii^{\prime}}V_{i^{\prime}}\;,

where Vi=VpV_{i}=V_{p}, and the matrix kernel is

𝕂ii(E,q)=dpp2πdφ2π(1f𝐪+𝐩)V|𝐩𝐩|E+ϵ𝐪ϵ𝐩ϵ𝐪+𝐩.\mathbb{K}_{ii^{\prime}}(E,q)=\displaystyle\frac{dp^{\prime}p^{\prime}}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{d\varphi^{\prime}}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{(1-f_{{\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime}})V_{|{\bf p}-{\bf p}^{\prime}|}}{E+\epsilon_{\bf q}-\epsilon_{{\bf p}^{\prime}}-\epsilon_{{\bf q}+{\bf p}^{\prime}}}\;.

Similarly, Eq. (35) can also be solved by inversion, with the difference that now the vector space has a larger dimension. If we define the vector index as i=(k,q,φ)i=(k,q,\varphi), where φ\varphi is the angle between 𝐤{\bf k} and 𝐪{\bf q}, and if we use the notation k,k>kFk,k^{\prime}>k_{F} and q,q<kFq,q^{\prime}<k_{F}, we find that the TT matrix 𝒮𝐤𝐪(E)\mathcal{S}_{{\bf k}{\bf q}}(E) can be evaluated as

𝒮i(E)=i[𝕀𝕂~(E)+𝕎~(E)]ii1Vi,\mathcal{S}_{i}(E)=\sum_{i^{\prime}}[\mathbb{I}-\tilde{\mathbb{K}}(E)+\tilde{\mathbb{W}}(E)]^{-1}_{ii^{\prime}}V_{i^{\prime}}\;, (37)

where Vi=V|𝐤𝐪|V_{i}=V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf q}|}, and where the two kernels are

𝕂~ii(E)\displaystyle\tilde{\mathbb{K}}_{ii^{\prime}}(E) =dkk2πdφ2πdqδ(qq)V|𝐤𝐤|EE𝐤𝐪,\displaystyle=\displaystyle\frac{dk^{\prime}k^{\prime}}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{d\varphi^{\prime}}{2\pi}dq^{\prime}\delta(q-q^{\prime})\frac{V_{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|}}{E-E_{{\bf k}^{\prime}{\bf q}}}\;,
𝕎~ii(E)\displaystyle\tilde{\mathbb{W}}_{ii^{\prime}}(E) =dqq2πdφ2πdkδ(kk)V|𝐪𝐪|EE𝐤𝐪.\displaystyle=\displaystyle\frac{dq^{\prime}q^{\prime}}{2\pi}\displaystyle\frac{d\varphi^{\prime}}{2\pi}dk^{\prime}\delta(k-k^{\prime})\frac{V_{|{\bf q}-{\bf q}^{\prime}|}}{E-E_{{\bf k}{\bf q}^{\prime}}}\;.

The variational ansatz thus allows repeated impurity-hole scattering, unlike the TT-matrix formulation. Note that this is qualitatively different from screening effects such as the Gork’ov–Melik-Barkhudarov particle-hole screening of the particle-particle correlations responsible for superfluidity in the Bose-Einstein-condensate-Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BEC-BCS) crossover Pisani et al. (2018). In particular, an additional excitation would be required to screen the interactions between the impurity and a fermion from the medium. This would be an interesting future direction of research, but is beyond the scope of the current work.

References

  • Lahaye et al. (2009) T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein,  and T. Pfau, The physics of dipolar bosonic quantum gasesRep. Prog. Phys. 72, 126401 (2009).
  • Baranov et al. (2012) M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo,  and P. Zoller, Condensed Matter Theory of Dipolar Quantum GasesChem. Rev. 112, 5012 (2012).
  • Chomaz et al. (2022) L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe-Tolra, B. L. Lev,  and T. Pfau, Dipolar physics: a review of experiments with magnetic quantum gasesRep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026401 (2022).
  • Griesmaier et al. (2005) A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler,  and T. Pfau, Bose-Einstein Condensation of ChromiumPhys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160401 (2005).
  • Stuhler et al. (2005) J. Stuhler, A. Griesmaier, T. Koch, M. Fattori, T. Pfau, S. Giovanazzi, P. Pedri,  and L. Santos, Observation of Dipole-Dipole Interaction in a Degenerate Quantum GasPhys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150406 (2005).
  • Lu et al. (2011) M. Lu, N. Q. Burdick, S. H. Youn,  and B. L. Lev, Strongly Dipolar Bose-Einstein Condensate of DysprosiumPhys. Rev. Lett. 107, 190401 (2011).
  • Lu et al. (2012) M. Lu, N. Q. Burdick,  and B. L. Lev, Quantum Degenerate Dipolar Fermi GasPhys. Rev. Lett. 108, 215301 (2012).
  • Aikawa et al. (2012) K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R. Grimm,  and F. Ferlaino, Bose-Einstein Condensation of ErbiumPhys. Rev. Lett. 108, 210401 (2012).
  • Aikawa et al. (2014a) K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, R. Grimm, J. L. Bohn, D. S. Jin, G. M. Bruun,  and F. Ferlaino, Anisotropic Relaxation Dynamics in a Dipolar Fermi Gas Driven Out of EquilibriumPhys. Rev. Lett. 113, 263201 (2014a).
  • Böttcher et al. (2020) F. Böttcher, J.-N. Schmidt, J. Hertkorn, K. S. H. Ng, S. D. Graham, M. Guo, T. Langen,  and T. Pfau, New states of matter with fine-tuned interactions: quantum droplets and dipolar supersolidsRep. Prog. Phys. 84, 012403 (2020).
  • Löw et al. (2012) R. Löw, H. Weimer, J. Nipper, J. B. Balewski, B. Butscher, H. P. Büchler,  and T. Pfau, An experimental and theoretical guide to strongly interacting Rydberg gasesJournal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 45, 113001 (2012).
  • Moses et al. (2017) S. Moses, J. Covey, M. Miecnikowski, D. Jin,  and J. Ye, New frontiers for quantum gases of polar moleculesNature Physics 13, 13 (2017).
  • Shaffer et al. (2018) J. P. Shaffer, S. T. Rittenhouse,  and H. R. Sadeghpour, Ultracold Rydberg moleculesNature Communications 9, 1965 (2018).
  • Valtolina et al. (2020) G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco,  and J. Ye, Dipolar evaporation of reactive molecules to below the Fermi temperatureNature 588, 239 (2020).
  • Marco et al. (2019) L. D. Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey,  and J. Ye, A degenerate Fermi gas of polar moleculesScience 363, 853 (2019).
  • Tobias et al. (2020) W. G. Tobias, K. Matsuda, G. Valtolina, L. De Marco, J.-R. Li,  and J. Ye, Thermalization and Sub-Poissonian Density Fluctuations in a Degenerate Molecular Fermi GasPhys. Rev. Lett. 124, 033401 (2020).
  • Schindewolf et al. (2022) A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Karman, I. Bloch,  and X.-Y. Luo, Evaporation of microwave-shielded polar molecules to quantum degeneracyNature 607, 677 (2022).
  • Duda et al. (2023) M. Duda, X.-Y. Chen, A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, J. von Milczewski, R. Schmidt, I. Bloch,  and X.-Y. Luo, Transition from a polaronic condensate to a degenerate Fermi gas of heteronuclear moleculesNature Physics 19, 720 (2023).
  • Deiglmayr et al. (2008) J. Deiglmayr, A. Grochola, M. Repp, K. Mörtlbauer, C. Glück, J. Lange, O. Dulieu, R. Wester,  and M. Weidemüller, Formation of Ultracold Polar Molecules in the Rovibrational Ground StatePhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 133004 (2008).
  • Repp et al. (2013) M. Repp, R. Pires, J. Ulmanis, R. Heck, E. D. Kuhnle, M. Weidemüller,  and E. Tiemann, Observation of interspecies 6Li-133Cs Feshbach resonancesPhys. Rev. A 87, 010701 (2013).
  • Park et al. (2023) J. J. Park, Y.-K. Lu, A. O. Jamison, T. V. Tscherbul,  and W. Ketterle, A Feshbach resonance in collisions between triplet ground-state moleculesNature 614, 54 (2023).
  • Tobias et al. (2022) W. G. Tobias, K. Matsuda, J.-R. Li, C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, T. Bilitewski, A. M. Rey,  and J. Ye, Reactions between layer-resolved molecules mediated by dipolar spin exchangeScience 375, 1299 (2022).
  • Cooper and Shlyapnikov (2009) N. R. Cooper and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Stable Topological Superfluid Phase of Ultracold Polar Fermionic MoleculesPhys. Rev. Lett. 103, 155302 (2009).
  • Levinsen et al. (2011) J. Levinsen, N. R. Cooper,  and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Topological px+𝑖𝑝y{p}_{x}+{\mathit{ip}}_{y} superfluid phase of fermionic polar moleculesPhys. Rev. A 84, 013603 (2011).
  • Bruun and Taylor (2008) G. M. Bruun and E. Taylor, Quantum Phases of a Two-Dimensional Dipolar Fermi GasPhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 245301 (2008).
  • Yamaguchi et al. (2010) Y. Yamaguchi, T. Sogo, T. Ito,  and T. Miyakawa, Density-wave instability in a two-dimensional dipolar Fermi gasPhys. Rev. A 82, 013643 (2010).
  • Sun et al. (2010) K. Sun, C. Wu,  and S. Das Sarma, Spontaneous inhomogeneous phases in ultracold dipolar Fermi gasesPhys. Rev. B 82, 075105 (2010).
  • Parish and Marchetti (2012) M. M. Parish and F. M. Marchetti, Density Instabilities in a Two-Dimensional Dipolar Fermi GasPhys. Rev. Lett. 108, 145304 (2012).
  • Matveeva and Giorgini (2012) N. Matveeva and S. Giorgini, Liquid and Crystal Phases of Dipolar Fermions in Two DimensionsPhys. Rev. Lett. 109, 200401 (2012).
  • Marchetti and Parish (2013) F. M. Marchetti and M. M. Parish, Density-wave phases of dipolar fermions in a bilayerPhys. Rev. B 87, 045110 (2013).
  • Klawunn et al. (2010a) M. Klawunn, J. Duhme,  and L. Santos, Bose-Fermi mixtures of self-assembled filaments of fermionic polar moleculesPhys. Rev. A 81, 013604 (2010a).
  • Potter et al. (2010) A. C. Potter, E. Berg, D.-W. Wang, B. I. Halperin,  and E. Demler, Superfluidity and Dimerization in a Multilayered System of Fermionic Polar MoleculesPhys. Rev. Lett. 105, 220406 (2010).
  • Pikovski et al. (2010) A. Pikovski, M. Klawunn, G. V. Shlyapnikov,  and L. Santos, Interlayer Superfluidity in Bilayer Systems of Fermionic Polar MoleculesPhys. Rev. Lett. 105, 215302 (2010).
  • Klawunn et al. (2010b) M. Klawunn, A. Pikovski,  and L. Santos, Two-dimensional scattering and bound states of polar molecules in bilayersPhys. Rev. A 82, 044701 (2010b).
  • Mazloom and Abedinpour (2018) A. Mazloom and S. H. Abedinpour, Interplay of interlayer pairing and many-body screening in a bilayer of dipolar fermionsPhys. Rev. B 98, 014513 (2018).
  • Mazloom and Abedinpour (2017) A. Mazloom and S. H. Abedinpour, Superfluidity in density imbalanced bilayers of dipolar fermionsPhys. Rev. B 96, 064513 (2017).
  • Lee et al. (2017) H. Lee, S. I. Matveenko, D.-W. Wang,  and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state in bilayer dipolar systemsPhys. Rev. A 96, 061602 (2017).
  • Klawunn and Recati (2013) M. Klawunn and A. Recati, Polar molecules in bilayers with high population imbalancePhys. Rev. A 88, 013633 (2013).
  • Matveeva and Giorgini (2013) N. Matveeva and S. Giorgini, Impurity Problem in a Bilayer System of DipolesPhys. Rev. Lett. 111, 220405 (2013).
  • Note (1) The “repulsive Fermi polaron” problem with dipolar fermions in a single layer geometry has been considered in Ref. Bombín et al. (2019).
  • Zöllner et al. (2011) S. Zöllner, G. M. Bruun,  and C. J. Pethick, Polarons and molecules in a two-dimensional Fermi gasPhys. Rev. A 83, 021603 (2011).
  • Parish (2011) M. M. Parish, Polaron-molecule transitions in a two-dimensional Fermi gasPhys. Rev. A 83, 051603 (2011).
  • Schmidt et al. (2012a) R. Schmidt, T. Enss, V. Pietilä,  and E. Demler, Fermi polarons in two dimensionsPhys. Rev. A 85, 021602 (2012a).
  • Ngampruetikorn et al. (2012) V. Ngampruetikorn, J. Levinsen,  and M. M. Parish, Repulsive polarons in two-dimensional Fermi gasesEurophysics Letters 98, 30005 (2012).
  • Parish and Levinsen (2013) M. M. Parish and J. Levinsen, Highly polarized Fermi gases in two dimensionsPhys. Rev. A 87, 033616 (2013).
  • Tajima et al. (2021) H. Tajima, J. Takahashi, S. I. Mistakidis, E. Nakano,  and K. Iida, Polaron Problems in Ultracold Atoms: Role of a Fermi Sea across Different Spatial Dimensions and Quantum Fluctuations of a Bose MediumAtoms 9, 18 (2021).
  • Sidler et al. (2016) M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler,  and A. Imamoglu, Fermi polaron-polaritons in charge-tunable atomically thin semiconductorsNature Physics 13, 255 (2016).
  • Efimkin et al. (2021) D. K. Efimkin, E. K. Laird, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish,  and A. H. MacDonald, Electron-exciton interactions in the exciton-polaron problemPhys. Rev. B 103, 075417 (2021).
  • Tiene et al. (2022) A. Tiene, J. Levinsen, J. Keeling, M. M. Parish,  and F. M. Marchetti, Effect of fermion indistinguishability on optical absorption of doped two-dimensional semiconductorsPhys. Rev. B 105, 125404 (2022).
  • Huang et al. (2023) D. Huang, K. Sampson, Y. Ni, Z. Liu, D. Liang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, H. Li, E. Martin, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, E. Tutuc, D. K. Efimkin,  and X. Li, Quantum Dynamics of Attractive and Repulsive Polarons in a Doped MoSe2{\mathrm{MoSe}}_{2} MonolayerPhys. Rev. X 13, 011029 (2023).
  • Yang et al. (1991) X. L. Yang, S. H. Guo, F. T. Chan, K. W. Wong,  and W. Y. Ching, Analytic solution of a two-dimensional hydrogen atom. I. Nonrelativistic theoryPhys. Rev. A 43, 1186 (1991).
  • Massignan et al. (2014) P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti,  and G. M. Bruun, Polarons, dressed molecules and itinerant ferromagnetism in ultracold Fermi gasesRep. Prog. Phys. 77, 034401 (2014).
  • Scazza et al. (2022) F. Scazza, M. Zaccanti, P. Massignan, M. M. Parish,  and J. Levinsen, Repulsive Fermi and Bose Polarons in Quantum GasesAtoms 10, 55 (2022).
  • Li et al. (2010) Q. Li, E. H. Hwang,  and S. Das Sarma, Collective modes of monolayer, bilayer, and multilayer fermionic dipolar liquidPhys. Rev. B 82, 235126 (2010).
  • Note (2) Note that Refs. Lahaye et al. (2009); Chomaz et al. (2022) use a different definition of CddC_{dd} but the same definition of adda_{dd}: CddLehaye=4πCddChomaz=4πD2=12πaddmC_{dd}^{\text{Lehaye}}=4\pi C_{dd}^{\text{Chomaz}}=4\pi D^{2}=12\pi\frac{a_{dd}}{m}.
  • Du et al. (2023) L. Du, P. Barral, M. Cantara, J. de Hond, Y.-K. Lu,  and W. Ketterle, Atomic physics on a 50 nm scale: Realization of a bilayer system of dipolar atoms (2023), arXiv:2302.07209 [cond-mat.quant-gas] .
  • Carr et al. (2009) L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems,  and J. Ye, Cold and ultracold molecules: science, technology and applicationsNew Journal of Physics 11, 055049 (2009).
  • Note (3) Note that, as mentioned previously, the Schrödinger equation becomes diagonal in \ell when either Q=0Q=0 or EF=0E_{F}=0, such that symmetric and antisymmetric solutions become degenerate.
  • Yudson et al. (1997) V. I. Yudson, M. G. Rozman,  and P. Reineker, Bound states of two particles confined to parallel two-dimensional layers and interacting via dipole-dipole or dipole-charge lawsPhys. Rev. B 55, 5214 (1997).
  • Parish et al. (2011) M. M. Parish, F. M. Marchetti,  and P. B. Littlewood, Supersolidity in electron-hole bilayers with a large density imbalanceEurophysics Letters 95, 27007 (2011).
  • Cotlet et al. (2020) O. Cotlet, D. S. Wild, M. D. Lukin,  and A. Imamoglu, Rotons in optical excitation spectra of monolayer semiconductorsPhys. Rev. B 101, 205409 (2020).
  • Tiene et al. (2020) A. Tiene, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, A. H. MacDonald, J. Keeling,  and F. M. Marchetti, Extremely imbalanced two-dimensional electron-hole-photon systemsPhys. Rev. Res. 2, 023089 (2020).
  • Fulde and Ferrell (1964) P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Superconductivity in a Strong Spin-Exchange FieldPhys. Rev. 135, A550 (1964).
  • Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1964) A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Nonuniform state of superconductors, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1136 (1964).
  • Casalbuoni and Nardulli (2004) R. Casalbuoni and G. Nardulli, Inhomogeneous superconductivity in condensed matter and QCDRev. Mod. Phys. 76, 263 (2004).
  • Radzihovsky and Sheehy (2010) L. Radzihovsky and D. E. Sheehy, Imbalanced Feshbach-resonant Fermi gasesRep. Prog. Phys. 73, 076501 (2010).
  • Chevy (2006) F. Chevy, Universal phase diagram of a strongly interacting Fermi gas with unbalanced spin populationsPhys. Rev. A 74, 063628 (2006).
  • Combescot and Giraud (2008) R. Combescot and S. Giraud, Normal State of Highly Polarized Fermi Gases: Full Many-Body TreatmentPhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 050404 (2008).
  • Combescot et al. (2007) R. Combescot, A. Recati, C. Lobo,  and F. Chevy, Normal State of Highly Polarized Fermi Gases: Simple Many-Body ApproachesPhys. Rev. Lett. 98, 180402 (2007).
  • Baranov et al. (2011) M. A. Baranov, A. Micheli, S. Ronen,  and P. Zoller, Bilayer superfluidity of fermionic polar molecules: Many-body effectsPhys. Rev. A 83, 043602 (2011).
  • Mahan (2000) G. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000).
  • Note (4) Note that we only plot the dimer energy at finite center of mass E(q=kF)E^{(q=k_{F})} corresponding to the symmetric states under the exchange \ell\mapstochar\rightarrow-\ell in Eq. (12\@@italiccorr) since these are the only ones with finite spectral weight. Instead, for zero center of mass momentum, symmetric and antisymmetric solution are degenerate in energy.
  • Schmidt et al. (2012b) R. Schmidt, T. Enss, V. Pietilä,  and E. Demler, Fermi polarons in two dimensionsPhys. Rev. A 85 (2012b).
  • Note (5) Note that only for the 1s1s state do we always have E(q=kF)EF<E(q=0)E^{(q=k_{F})}-E_{F}<E^{(q=0)}.
  • Punk and Zwerger (2007) M. Punk and W. Zwerger, Theory of rf-Spectroscopy of Strongly Interacting FermionsPhys. Rev. Lett. 99, 170404 (2007).
  • Baym et al. (2007) G. Baym, C. J. Pethick, Z. Yu,  and M. W. Zwierlein, Coherence and Clock Shifts in Ultracold Fermi Gases with Resonant InteractionsPhys. Rev. Lett. 99, 190407 (2007).
  • Liu et al. (2020) W. E. Liu, Z.-Y. Shi, M. M. Parish,  and J. Levinsen, Theory of radio-frequency spectroscopy of impurities in quantum gasesPhys. Rev. A 102, 023304 (2020).
  • Smoleński et al. (2021) T. Smoleński, P. E. Dolgirev, C. Kuhlenkamp, A. Popert, Y. Shimazaki, P. Back, X. Lu, M. Kroner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Esterlis, E. Demler,  and A. Imamoğlu, Signatures of Wigner crystal of electrons in a monolayer semiconductorNature 595, 53 (2021).
  • Shimazaki et al. (2021) Y. Shimazaki, C. Kuhlenkamp, I. Schwartz, T. Smoleński, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Kroner, R. Schmidt, M. Knap,  and A. Imamoğlu, Optical Signatures of Periodic Charge Distribution in a Mott-like Correlated Insulator StatePhys. Rev. X 11, 021027 (2021).
  • Popert et al. (2022) A. Popert, Y. Shimazaki, M. Kroner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Imamoğlu,  and T. Smoleński, Optical Sensing of Fractional Quantum Hall Effect in GrapheneNano Letters 22, 7363 (2022).
  • Schwartz et al. (2021) I. Schwartz, Y. Shimazaki, C. Kuhlenkamp, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Kroner,  and A. Imamoğlu, Electrically tunable Feshbach resonances in twisted bilayer semiconductorsScience 374, 336 (2021).
  • Nishimura et al. (2021) K. Nishimura, E. Nakano, K. Iida, H. Tajima, T. Miyakawa,  and H. Yabu, Ground state of the polaron in an ultracold dipolar Fermi gasPhys. Rev. A 103, 033324 (2021).
  • Aikawa et al. (2014b) K. Aikawa, S. Baier, A. Frisch, M. Mark, C. Ravensbergen,  and F. Ferlaino, Observation of Fermi surface deformation in a dipolar quantum gasScience 345, 1484 (2014b).
  • Kawamura and Ohashi (2022) T. Kawamura and Y. Ohashi, Feasibility of a Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov superfluid Fermi atomic gasPhys. Rev. A 106, 033320 (2022).
  • Shimahara (1998) H. Shimahara, Phase Fluctuations and Kosterlitz-Thouless Transition in Two-Dimensional Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov SuperconductorsJournal of the Physical Society of Japan 67, 1872 (1998).
  • Tiene et al. (2024) A. Tiene, A. Tamargo Bracho, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen,  and F. M. Marchetti, Multiple polaron quasiparticles with dipolar fermions in a bilayer geometry (dataset) (2024).
  • Morse and Allis (1933) P. M. Morse and W. P. Allis, The Effect of Exchange on the Scattering of Slow Electrons from AtomsPhys. Rev. 44, 269 (1933).
  • Portnoi and Galbraith (1997) M. Portnoi and I. Galbraith, Variable-phase method and Levinson’s theorem in two dimensions: Application to a screened Coulomb potentialSolid State Communications 103, 325 (1997).
  • Levinsen and Parish (2015) J. Levinsen and M. M. Parish, Strongly interacting two-dimensional Fermi gasesAnnual Review of Cold Atoms and Molecules 3, 1 (2015).
  • Pisani et al. (2018) L. Pisani, A. Perali, P. Pieri,  and G. C. Strinati, Entanglement between pairing and screening in the Gorkov-Melik-Barkhudarov correction to the critical temperature throughout the BCS-BEC crossoverPhys. Rev. B 97, 014528 (2018).
  • Bombín et al. (2019) R. Bombín, T. Comparin, G. Bertaina, F. Mazzanti, S. Giorgini,  and J. Boronat, Two-dimensional repulsive Fermi polarons with short- and long-range interactionsPhys. Rev. A 100, 023608 (2019).