Reply to arXiv:2103.10268 `Comment on Crossover of Charge Fluctuations across the Strange Metal Phase Diagram

We recently reported [1,2] measurements of the charge density fluctuations in the strange metal cuprate Bi$_{2.1}$Sr$_{1.9}$Ca$_{1.0}$Cu$_{2.0}$O$_{8+x}$ using both reflection M-EELS and transmission EELS with $leq$10 meV energy resolution. We observed the well-known 1 eV plasmon in this material for momentum $qlesssim$ 0.12 r.l.u., but found that it does not persist to large $q$. For $qgtrsim0.12$ r.l.u., we observe a frequency-independent continuum, similar to that observed in early Raman scattering experiments [3,4], that correlates highly with the strange metal phase [2]. In his Comment (arXiv:2103.10268), Joerg Fink claims we do not see the plasmon, and that our results are inconsistent with optics, RIXS, and the authors own transmission EELS measurements with $sim$100 meV resolution from the early 1990s [5,6]. The author claims we have made a trigonometry error and are measuring a larger momentum than we think. The author asserts that the two-particle excitations of cuprate strange metals are accurately described by weakly interacting band theory in RPA with corrections for conduction band carrier lifetimes and Umklapp effects. Here, we show that the authors Comment is in contradiction with known information from the literature. At $qlesssim0.12$ r.l.u. we see the same 1 eV plasmon as other techniques. Moreover we compute our momentum correctly, adjusting the sample and detector angles during an energy scan to keep $q$ fixed. The only discrepancy is between our data and the results of Ref. [5] for $qgtrsim0.12$ r.l.u. where, because of the coarse resolution used, the data had to be corrected for interference from the elastic line. A reexamination of these corrections in early transmission EELS measurements would likely shed light on this discrepancy.